ML20235L843
| ML20235L843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1987 |
| From: | Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235L800 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7668, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8707160843 | |
| Download: ML20235L843 (16) | |
Text
~ - --
n 3 :ti eiy ?;j c ys , .e d , .
~ '
o ;
- )
i EGG-NTA-766.8 June 1987 1'
+;
INFORMAL REPORT
?- y G
q .
, -3
/daho '
1 JNat/Ona/ 1 CONFORMANCE TO GENr.':IC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
Engmeenny , ., VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-
. Laboratory l, 4 ' ' '
RELATED COMPONENTS: WATERFORD-3 m
- Managed
- by the U S. w q
' Department l >
Alan C. Udy ofEnerg9 - ,
v
(
, .;b C
i j'l q~
f E B n B su,,.-
> Prepared for the Work performed under-ooc con =r 4, ll.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. No. DE-AC07-76tD01570 : ,
.'):t p8 OI16'08d3 DEOUl~
p ADDCK 05000332
~4 PDR 7
m.,s ,.m
?
_r______-_._.__----J _ . - _ _ . - . _ - _ .
l l
l DISCLAIMER This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
, States Government. Neither the _ United States Government nor any agency thereof, I nor any of tneir employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not intnnge privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial ploduct, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or f avoring
- by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinioris of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the' United States Government or any agency thereof.
b
F !
\
l EGG-NTA-7668 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
WATERFORD-3 1 1
. I l j 1
l l Docket No. 50-382 l
l Alan C. Udy l
l l
l I
Published June 1987 I Idaho National Engineering Laboratory l EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID0I570 FIN No. 06001 i
m_________._ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
. 1 ABSTRACT l
This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from Louisiana Power & Light regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3.
l 'l l
1 l
1 l
l l
i l
i i
k j
l
- l l j
Docket No. 50-382 l i
1
\
i si ;
)
> -j I
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 j conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering and System Technology, 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-'10-11-3, FIN No.. D6001.
i i
Docket No. 50-382 iii
CONTENTS l
l ABSTRACT ........ .......... .................... ..................... 11 FOREWORD .............................................................. iii
. 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 I
- 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 i ESTABLISHED ...................................................... 5 i 4.1 Guideline ............................ ..................... 5 4.2 Evaluation .......................... ...................... 5 4.3 Conclusion ................................................. 6 l 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT .............................. 7 l
l l
5.1 Guideline .................................................. 7 5.2 Evaluation ...................... ... ...................... 7 l 5.3 Conclusion . ......................................... ..... 7
]
i
- 6. CONCLUSION .......................... ........ .. ..... ......... 8
- 7. REFERENCES .......................................... . .......... 9 l
l l
l -
iv
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
WATERFORD-3 l
l
- 1. INTRODUCTION On February 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 signal from the reactor protection system. This ir4cident was terminated manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiation of the automatic trip signal. The failute of the circuit breakers was determined l
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.
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 8,19831) all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to the generic issues raised by the ana'yses of these two ATWS events.
. This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by Louisiana Power & Light, the licensee for Unit No. 3 of the Waterford Steam Electric Station, 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 I
- 2. . REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT Item 2.2.2 of Generic Let+.er 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. ,_
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.
l 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 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 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 The licensee for Unit No. 3 of the Waterford Steam Flectric Station responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 4,-19832 and i November 15, 1985.3 These submittals include information that describes their vendor interface program. 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. We have reviewed the information submitted and note the following.
The licensee's response states that they actively participate in the
- Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) program. The Vendor EquipmFnt Technical Information Program (VETIP) was developed by NUTAC. VETIP includes interaction with the NSSS vendor and with other electric utilities. The 3
licensee states that this portion of the NUTAC report is complied with. The licensee also reports that procedures to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program are complete and functional. Procedures PMP-504, " Operations Assessment and Information Dissemination Group, "and PE-01-010," Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) Data Submission and Retrieval," are cited as implementing this program. The licensee states that information exchange and contact with their NSSS vendor exists, however, the licensee has not described their ,
interface program with their NSSS vendor (Combustion Engineering).
One of the VETIP implementation responsibilities is to seek assistance and equipment technical information from the vendors of safety-related equipment (other than the NSS; vendor) when the licensee's evaluation of an equipment problem or an equipment technical information problem concludes that such interaction is necessary or would be beneficial. The licensee states that they comply with this NUTAC implementation requirement. However, the guidelines for Section 2.2.2 of the generic letter states that formal vendor interfaces should be established with some safety-related equipment vendors besides the NSSS vendor. The licensee has not indicated that any formal interface program has been established with vendors other than the NSSS vendor.
The licensee states that they will continue to seek assistance and equipment technical information from the vendors of safety-related equipment. However, the licensee has not described their vendor interface program with the NSSS vendor nor with vendors of other safety-related equipment.
3.3 Conclusion We conclude that the licensee's response regarding program description is not complete. The licensee should describe the vendor contacts that are ~
established on a regular 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 4
- 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 INP0 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 program and to incorporate the program enhancements described in 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 eacF 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.
4.2 Evaluation The licensee provided a brief description of the vendor interface program. Their description references the NUTAC/VETIP program. The licensee states that plant instructions and procedures are in place to assure that the VETIP program is properly controlled and implemented.
VETIP is comprised of two basic elements related to vendor equipment problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPROS) 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
4 i
q i
Through participation in the NPRDS program, the licensee submits i 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 I reported through NPRDS programs, Nuclear' Network and NRC reports. Based on j the significance of the event, as determined by the screening review, INPO issues a report to all utilities outlining the cause of the event and- ,
related' problems. The report provides recommendations for practical-corrective actions. These reports are issued in Significant' Event Reports, in Significant Operating Experience Reports.and'as Operations and' Maintenance Reminders. Upon receipt of these documents, the licensee evaluates the information to determine. applicability.to the facility in accordance with procedures PMP-504, " Operations Assessment and Information Dissemination Group," and PE-01-010, " Nuclear Plant Reliability Dath System (NPRDS) Data Submission. and Retrieval.." This evaluation is then documented and corrective actions taken as determined necessary. l The licensee's response states that procedures requiring the review of and the evaluation of incoming equipment technical information and the incorporation of it into existing procedures are complete and functional. J I
4.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's response to this concern'is adequate and acceptable. This finding is based on the understanding that the licensee's commitment to implement the VETIP program includes the implementation of the enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP program to the extent that the licensee can control or influence the implementation of these recommendations.
a 6
1
1 1
1
)
}
- 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDOR THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT 5.1 Guideline i l
The licensee / applicant responie should verify that the responsibilities of the licensee or applicant and vendors that provide service on safety-related equipment are defined such that control of applicable instructions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment :]
are provided. I 5.2 Evaluation The licensee's response commits to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program.
l The VETIP guidelines include' implementation procedures for the internal handling of vendor services. The licensee describes procedure PMP-004,
" Control of Vendor Information," and procedure QP-007-001, " Control of purchased Material, Equipment and Services," as providing the internal controls over vendor supplied services of safety-related equipment and satisfying these guidelines.
5.3 Conclusion We find that the information contained in the licensee's submittals is sufficient for us to conclude that the licensee's and vendor's responsibilities are defined and controlled appropriately. Therefore, the information provided by the licensee for this item is acceptable.
e 7
- 6. CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of item 2.2.2 for Waterford-3, we find that the licensee's internal handling of vendor-supplied services, along with the-licensee's commitment to' implement.the NUTAC/VETIP ' program, is acceptable. This'is ,
based on the understanding that the licensee's commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program includes the enhancements. described in Section 3.2 of the report to the extent that the licensee.can control or influence such.
~
. enhancements.
In addition, the licensee should establish and describe a program to periodically' contact the NSSS vendor and vendors of key components (such as auxiliary feedwater pumps,-safety-related batteries, ECCS pumps and safety-related valve operators) to facilitate the exchange of current-technical information. In the case of the diesel generator and safety-related switchgear vendors, a formal interface, such as'that established with the NSSS vendor, should be established,- if practicable.
9 8
1 l
- 7. 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, Louisiana Power & Light'(K. W. Cook) to NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), !
" Generic Letter 83-28, Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of-Salem ATWS Events," W3783-3318, A-3-A20.02.02, 3-A1.01 04, L.02.
- 3. Letter, Louisiana Power & Light-(K. W. Cook) to NRC (D. G. Eisenhut),
" License Condition' No.13," November 15, 1985, W3P85-3158, A4.05, NQA.
~1
- 4. Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program, Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section ~ 2.2.2, March 1984, j INPO 84-010.
l l
l I
i i
l I
i t'
.e-9 t l
___._.________________j
U.S. NUCLEAa a40VLATOav CotamitelON i atPO.T NvMsta # Ass e,ess ay TiOC, sad vor Na. e# sers NaC 70aM 336 h3,3,'- BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7668
$E6 IN$7aUCfl0NS ON 1we atytast 2 flTLE *ND 8us tet ti J LE AVG SLANiG CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-a oAre asacat CoMaurio RELATED COMP 0NENTS: WATERFORD-3 via.
MoNr-
, l
. Aur oaisi June 1987
. oAraiarcar issuno Alan C. Udy MoNr- 1 Aa l
June 1987 1 FtR80aMING ORGANeg A1lQN NAME AND MAILING AooatSS tsactumt. C.es a PaOJ4CTITASK/woan WNiT NUM9Ea EG&G Idaho, Inc.
P. O. Box 1625 . . N oa caANr mvM..a Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6001 io scoNsoaimo oacANiz Ariom NAM A=oMAiuNoAoonanon, e.Ces E Tv7."ce aeroar Division of Engineering and System Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission = *s ala wv e a so "-~~ ~~'
Washington, DC 20555 12 SUPPLEMENiaaY NOTES i3A.sfaACia ., ,
l 1
This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from Louisiana Power & Light regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for Unit No. 3 of the Waterford Steam Electric Station. ;
64 oOCUMtNT AN ALv8,3 e KE vwOaOS Df 5CaiPTOMS IS AV A6LAS LtT V !
Unlimited Distribution if $ECValf v CLASSiPICAtl0N tra,, ,e,,,
e iosNrisisasiopeN amono ttaus Unclassified (Tn,n recorre tinciassified IP NWM$ta Of P AGES IS PRaC4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _