ML20235L839

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.2 - Vendor Interface Programs for All Other Safety-Related Components: Seabrook Units 1 & 2, Final Informal Rept

ML20235L839
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/30/1987
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20235L811	List: ML20235L807 ML20235L839
References
CON-FIN-D-6001, CON-FIN-D-6002 EGG-NTA-7654, GL-83-28, TAC-63416, NUDOCS 8707160842
Download: ML20235L839 (16)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ ._

. c. ,7j

> ~

1 EGG-NTA-7654 June 1987 INFORMAL REPORT

(~ .t i

IIdaho N~ ational CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2-- '* : * ' . ,

.. L . .

En.gineenny ,

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: SEABROOK-1 AND -2 - --

Laboratory .

' ~\

Managed l

~

_, bp the U.S. Alan C. Udy

' Department

^of EnergV.

\

g .

,[. ~

jf EGnG.ia.

Prepared for the

" '* "!87c"L",O'? U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION No. DE-AC07-76/D01570 8707160842 870625' PDR ADOCK 05000443 P PDR

o .

,o I'

a DlSCLAIMER i

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, nor any of their 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 I not infringe pnvately owned nghts. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessanly constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or f avonng by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessanly state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

e 1

l

EGG-NTA-7654

'e TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT .

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

( SEABROOK-1 AND -2 . _

(_

! Docket Nos. 50-443/50-444 l

l Alan C. Udy ,,

Published June 1987 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 DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 l FIN Nos. D6001 and D6002

ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Public Service Company of New Hampshire regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for Seabrook-1 and -2.

Docket Nos. 50-443/50-444 TAC No. 63416 11 l

_ _____-_____-_ - _ a

FOREWCRD This repert 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 ilegulatory 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 Nos. 20-19-10-11-3 and 20-19-40-41-3, FIN Nos. D6001 and D6002.

t i

Docket Nos. 50-443/50-444 l

TAC No. 63416 i iii t -

m-CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................ .... ........ .. ii FOREWORD ............ ........................ ........................ iii

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

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 ESTABLISHED ...................... ... . ......................... 5 4.1 Guideline ................... ................... .......... 5 4.2 Evaluation ................................... ........ .. 5 4.3 Conclusion ................................ .. ............. 6

5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT ............................. 7 5.1 Guideline .................................................. 7 5.2 Evaluation .. .............................................. 7 5.3 Conclusion ........ ........................................ 7

6. CONCLUSION ....... ... ... ..... ....... . ...... ............ . 8

7. REFERENCES .... . . .. .... . ........... ...... . ........ . ... 9 O

iv i

L_____.__________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

SEABROOK-1 AND -2

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 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 ]l generator low-low level during plant startup. In this case, the reactor was tripped manua'lly 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) 1 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.

l l This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire, the licensee for Seabrook-1 and the applicant for Seabrook-2, 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 .;he end of this report.

1 l

1

2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT 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 l -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.

l D

2

f

3. ITEM 2.2.2.- PROGRAM DESCRIPTION.

l 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.

1 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 Public Service Company of New Hampshire responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 4, 19832 and June 29, 1984.3 These submittals include information that describes their vendor interface programs. In the review of the utility 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 response states that the utility actively participates in the Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) program. The Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program (VETIP) was developed by NUTAC VETIP includes

. interaction with the NSSS vendor and with other electric utilities. Typical

\

i

a i

l l

NSSS vendor (Westinghouse) contact with the utility includes direct contact l and a receipted technical bulletin system. This contact is an on going program. They also committed to seek assistance and technical information

]

from the vendors of safety-related equipment as recommended in the NUTAC j report. However, the utility has not indicated that any formal interface l program has been established with vendors other than their NSSS vendor. They also state that they currently use the NPRDS data base and that procedures to ,

I implement the NUTAC/VETIP reporting requirements are to be in place three menths prior to fuel load. . l The utility reports that controls and procedures to require the review of safety-related equipment technical information to verify that it is l referenced by and incorporated into plant procedures and instructions will be established at the same time.

i 3.3 Conclusion We conclude that, with the exception of interaction with the vendors of other safety-related equipment, the utility's response regarding program description is complete and, therefore, acceptable. The licensee / applicant should establish a program to periodically contact vendors of key components (suen 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 electrical switchgear vendors, the licensee / applicant should establish a formal interface similar to that with the NSSS vendor, if practicable.

O i I

4 l

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 each vendor ofL safety-related equipment, will not relieve the licensee / applicant of his responsibil,ity to obtain appropriate vendor instructions and information where necessary to provide adegaate confidence that a structure, system or component will perform sat factorily in service and to ensure adequate quality assurance in accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.

4.2 Evaluation The utility provided a brief description of the vendor interface program. Their description references the NUTAC/VETIP program. The licensee / applicant states that plant instructions and procedures will assure that the VETIP program is properly controlled and implemented.

l i

VETIP is comprised of two basic elements related to vendor equipment i problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) and the  !

l' 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. 1 o . I 1

l l

5  ;

l l

O

Through participation in the NPRDS program, the utility submits 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 reported through the NPRDS programs, Nuclear Network and NRC reports. l

. Based on the significance of the event, as determined by the screening review, INP0 issues a report to all utilities outlining the cause of the

~

event, related problems and recommends 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's/ applicant's programs and procedures require the routing up this information to the appropriate personnel who analyze the data. Their evaluation is documented and corrective actions are taken as determined necessary. These personnel also determine the dissemination of this information to other departments.

The utility's response states that procedures were being established (as of June 1984) to review and evaluate incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures. These new procedures were to be operational three months prior to fuel load.

Reporting to the NPRDS database was to commence before commercial operation.

4.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's/ applicant's response to this concern is adequate and acceptable. This finding is based on the understanding that their 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 utility can control or influence the implementation of  ;

these recommendations.

l ^

j l

l 1 6

l-

l

5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDOR THAT PROVIDE-SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT 1

1 5.1 Guideline i I

I 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 of

., applicable instructions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment are provided.

5.2 Evaluation

'The licensee's/ applicant's response commits to' implement the NUTAC/VETIP program. They further state'that their internal programs and  :

- procedures control the vendor-supplied servicing of safety-related equipment, The VETIP guidelines also include implementation procedures for the internal handling of vendor services which the applicant states will be utilized.

5.3 Conclusion We find that the information contained in the licensee's/ applicant's submittals is sufficient for us to conclude that the utility's and vendor's responsibilities are defined and controlled appropriately. Therefore, the information provided by the utility for this item is acceptable.

t 7

G. CONCLUSION

' Based on our review of the Public Service Company of New Hampshire j response to the specific requirements of iten 2.2.2 for Seabrook-1/-2, we-find that their interface program with its NSSS supplier, its internal ,

handling of vendor-supplied services, along with their commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program, is acceptable. This is based on the ,

understanding that the utility's commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program prior to 3 months before fuel load includes the enhancements -

described in Section 3.2 of the report to the extent that the utility can control or influence such enhancements, and that their reporting to the-NPRDS data base begins prior to commercial operation.

The licensee / applicant should establish a program to periodically contact 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.

6 9

8

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, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (J. DeVincentis) to NRC (G. W. Knighton), " Response to Generic Letter 83-28,"

November 4, 1983, SBN 576, T.F.B4.2.99.

3. Letter, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (J. DeVincentis) to NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), " Response to Section 2.2.2 of NRC Generic Letter 83-28," June 29, 1984, SBN-676, T.F.B.7.1.2.

4. Letter, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (G. S. Thomas) to NRC,

" Additional Information for Items 2.1 (Part 2) and 2.2 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28," May 4, 1987, NYN-87061.

5. Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program, Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2, March 1984, INPO 84-010.

I l

l a

i

~

4 9

l

__________________________-__a

wc roam aan u s. Nucts An neoularom y consuiassom i mePont Numeen ease, s er riac see ve, m.,,ssays IA*"3# Bl8UOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7654

$tt tN5tRuCrlON$ oN rHe REvinSE I

2 retti ANo Aut ritLt J L3 Ava DLANE CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-

• o ^" a "oa ' ""'"' S o RELATED COMPONENTS: SEABROOK-1 AND -2 uo ru ,.Aa

. Aur oais, June l

1987

]5

-Alan C. Udy , o A r , ,,,,1,,,u o.

McNrM vtaa

. June I 1987 7.*t APommiNo onGANi2 ArioN NAM 4 ANO MAILING AoomiSS fiacium #W cast 8. PMoJ8CTIT ASE/ WORE uni r Numetm EG&G Idaho,.Inc.

P.-0. Box 1625

• s'N oa oaA~r Nu na Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6001/06002- l l

io si o~so ,No oaoA~,4 ArioN NA . ANo . ail,mo Aooaiss no, mi.e.m, ,, rv,. o, nuoar l

Division of Engineering and System Technology J 0ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission * "aia av a m "~~~ ~=>  ;

Washington,'DC 20555

,2 SUPWLEMENr ARY Nort$

tJ Assim Acr rJ00 =o,ss er 'es.d l

This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Public -

Service Company of New Hampshire regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for Seabrook-1 and -2.

i l

'd'

.. ooco . N r A~ A L ,... . .. . .o os onc a ,,,o . i A,v,*g.gr-Unlimited Distribution 16 SECValry CL AS$i8,CArioN i (Tnn oe,ei l

. .o Nei.iiavo"N iNoto naus Unclassified I

< r ., .,o Unclassified IF NUM01 A c5 PAGES il PA4L

_-