ML20213H068
| ML20213H068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1987 |
| From: | Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213H071 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6002 EGG-NTA-7551, GL-83-28, TAC-64022, TAC-64049, NUDOCS 8705190128 | |
| Download: ML20213H068 (13) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EGG-NTA-7551 February 1987 INFORMAL REPORT 9
a 2 /daho CONFORf!ANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2, Nations / VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS), BRAIDUCOD STATION, UNIT Nos. 1 AND 2
. g,,,,,,,ygg Laboratory Managed Alan C. Udy by the U S.
Department ofEnergy it 64 EEEG" Prepared for the wo,,,,,,,my,, U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOE Contract No. DE-AC07 76lD01570 13ff-
- .e e
A DISCLAIMER This book was prepsrad as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the Uruted States Government. Neither the Uruted States Governrnent nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or irnpised, or assumes any legal liatpisty or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any informacon, apparatus, product or process disdosed or represents that its use would not infringe pnvately owned nghts. References herein to any specific commercal product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessanly consttute or imply its endorsement. im.v.......date, or favonng by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opiruons of authors expressed herein do not necessanly state or reflect those of the Uruted States Governrnent or any agency thereof.
O
EGG-NTA-7551 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT d
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2, VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS),
BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 Docket Nos. 50-456/50-457 Alan C. Udy i
Published February 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
J Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. D6002 e- - , , . , r-,, - - .+-c , - e-,
L.
A8STRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from Comonwealth Edison for the Braidwood Station regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 Item 2.2.2.
i Docket Nos. 50-456/50-457 TAC Nos. 64022/64049 11
- )
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, Division of PWR Licensing-A, 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. 20-19-40-41-3, FIN No. D6002.
.)
Docket Nos. 50-456/50-457 TAC Nos. 64022/64049 11)
CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................. 11 FOREWORD .............................................................. 111
- 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1
- 2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT ........................................ 2 i'
- 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 ................................................. 5
- 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT .............................. 6 5.1 Guideline .................................................. 6 5.2 Evaluation ................................................. .6 5.3 Conclusion ................................................. 6
- 6. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 7
- 7. REFERENCES ....................................................... 8 2
iv
l CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.2.
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMP 0NENTS),
BRAIDWOOD STATION. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2
- 1. INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of Q 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 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
) generator low-low level during plant startup. In this case, the reactor-was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip.
t 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-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) 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 Commonwealth Edison, the applicant for the Braidwood Station, for J Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28. The documents reviewed as a part of J
this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of this report.
f 1
l , _ , . - - - . _ _. - - _ _ __. ., _ __ - _ . _ _ _ _ - _ ---,
- 2. REVIEW CONTENT AND f0RMAT 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.
L-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
2
- 3. ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3.1 Guideline 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 u that receipt of vendor equipment technical information (ETI) is acknowledged
! or otherwise verified.
This program description should establish that such interfaces are 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 vendct technical information which ensure that it is kept current and complete and that it is incorporated into plant 4 operating, maintenance and test procedures as is appropriate.
t 3.2 Evaluation The applicant for the Braidwood Station responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 5, 1983, February 29, 1984, June 1, 1984,4 and May 7, 1985.5 These submittals include information j that describe their past and current vendor interface programs. In the I 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. We have reviewed this information and note the following.
. The applicant's responses state that they actively participate in the Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) program. The Vendor Equipment J
Technical Information Program (VETIP) was developed by NUTAC. VETIP includes interaction with the NSSS vendor and with other electric utilities. Typical NSSS vendor contact with the applicant includes regular meetings and service bulletins and advisories. The applicant also states i
3 a
. - _ . . . . _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . u
-l that procedures to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program are in place as of July 1, 1985. This includes NSSS vendor. contact and direct interaction with other vendors. The' applicant's Nuclear Stations Division issued a directive, NSDD-M02, as the overall control procedure to handle vendor
- technical information. A formal review process-is used to ensure that equipment technical information is kept current and available. .
3.3 Conclusion L I
We conclude that the applicant's response regarding program description
, is complete and, therefore, acceptable.
e 4
- 4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICA8LY BE ESTABLISHED 4.1 Guideline i
The licensee / applicant response should describe their program for compensating for the lack of a formal vendor interface where such an-l 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 l
describe how procedures were revised to properly control and implement this program and to incorporate the program enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP report. It should also be noted that the lack 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.
i 4.2 Evaluation The applicant's submittals provided a brief description of the vendor interface program. Their description references the NUTAC/VETIP program.
The applicant states that plant instructions and procedures are currently in place to assure that the VETIP program is properly controlled and implemented.
4.3 Conclusion i
We find that the applicant's response addresses this concern 2
adequately and is acceptable.
t l
5
- 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 service on safety-related equipment are defined such that control cf appilcable instructions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment are provided.
5.2 Evaluation The appilcant's responses commit to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program. They further state that their present and planned future practices and activities adequately implement this program. The VETIP program includes implementation procedures for the internal handling of-vendor services.
5.3 Conclusion We find that the information contained in the applicant's submittals is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant's and vendor's responsibilities are defined and controlled appropriately. Therefore, the information provided by the applicant for this item is acceptable.
I i
6
- 6. CONCLUSION Based on our review of the applicant's response to the specific requirements of Item 2.2.2, " Vendor Interface Programs for All Other Safety-Related Components." we find that the information provided by the applicant to resolve the concerns of this program meets the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable.
-)
e l
I 1 l
- 1. 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, Commonwealth Edison (P. L. Barnes) to NRC (H. R. Denton),
" Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28," November 5, 1983. -
1
- 3. Letter, Commonwealth Edison (P. L. Barnes) to NRC (H. R. Denton), L,
" Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28," February 29, 1984.
- 4. Letter, Commonwealth Edison (P. L. Barnes) to NRC (H. R. Denton),
" Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATSW Events,"
June 1, 1984.
- 5. Letter, Commonwealth Edison (G. L. Alexander) to NRC (H. R. Denton),
" Supplement Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28, " Required Actions
- Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," May 7,;1985.
i 2
=
j i 8 i
r,oc.
g=== u.c. uct.ancut ., n : .*ee<mv u,4 - ve, e..,-,
s*," "','- BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET- EGG-NTA-7551
$tt imSTNuCflons om Twe stygmsg 2 raTLE amo suoritte J ttave stans CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2, VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS),
BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNIT N0s. 1 AND 2
- o a" "'* ' co**" o o, 1,. ..a.
l
. .ur-o isi February 1987
. Alan C. Udy . oari ateoar.s.u o om e ,. ..a.
l g February 1987
- 7. D tmpomwamG onGamiza rsom mawe ano wasumG agon E55 ## ace,esle Ceau a P8004tCTeiasmewomit useit muustm EG&G Idaho, Inc.
P. O. Box 1625 . ..m om oaa=, u .a Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6002 to 5POmsomemG omGamizaTecm mawe amo unsumG acomEsa tsachner to Cassa lla. TYPt OF REPoAT l Division of PWR Licensing - A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . ..cocove.. ,, _ ,
Washington, DC 20555 12 $UP944wtNr AAT 40f 85 t3 aesimacT (100 spores er esad 4 This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from Commonwealth J
Edison regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2 for the Braidwood Station. :
l l
.. ooevut=r ama6= sis . ms *woaos ossCa.*roas is avaasas ur-STaffwtmf j Unlimited Distribution is sect,aitvcLassisicatiom a rna n.,w
.ioemri,i . o m emoea n Unclassified o ra r.
Unclassified l i, mu tao..ao.:
j . is pasCE t
_ - . . . . - _ . _ ._ .