ML20214R538

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.2 - Vendor Interface Programs for All Other Safety-Related Components, Cooper, Informal Rept

ML20214R538
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	03/31/1987
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20214R527	List: ML20214R524 ML20214R538
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7562, GL-83-28, TAC-53663, NUDOCS 8706080191
Download: ML20214R538 (16)

Text

_ _ _ _

j ,; ..,.

, -i ri EGG-NTA-7562

.j March 1987 i

'I

~'

INFORMAL REPORT J

- a {

s

.. .,g,g , ,

l National CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 33-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

l

! Engineer /ng -

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-Laboratory . j RELATED COMP 0NENTS: COOPER

. Mariaged

)

l i by the US. 4 '

Department Alan C. Udy ofEnergy

)

1 I

\

1 I

• 1

.,j

)qEGsG m; work pertonnat uns,, Prepared far the DOE Contract no o u co m oorsm U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8706080191 870326 PDR ADOCK 05000298

,PDR. ,,

.i.>r .- r =..'ra _ _ _ . - - - - - - - . - .

. .. , s, . , ,.

.?.

./

i i ,

1 4

/

, 1 DISCLAIMER 4

Thrs book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the Unated States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, r.or any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legai liability or resocnsability for the accuracy, completeness, or itsefulness of any

/ information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that ts use would not ininnge prrestely owned nghts. References herei.1 to any specific comtr.orcial product, process, or service t:y Tade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessaruy constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein oo not necessanly state or reflect these of the United States Govemment or any agency mereof.

i 1 e

\.

g r . 1 i

/i e

v j

O l

+ 1 1

)

$ ~

4 l

6

4

! EGG-NTA-7562 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT a

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

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

COOPER Docket No. 50-298 Alan C. Udy' Published February 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 FIN No. D6001 4

. _ . _ - - . , . - . . . -a- ,;m -I

4 4En * ,,6.m, p. J. 4 - . - - - -> e 4 t-I i .

t.

f ABSTRACT.

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

. the Nebraska Public Power District regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28,' Item 2.2.2, for the for the Cooper Nuclear-Station.

r a

l i

~

Docket No. 50-298 TAC No. 53663 11 i' , . . . . , . . . . , . , . - -. . -- - - ... . .

l I

l 1

.l l

l l

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,.0ffice 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. 20-19-10-11-3 FIN No. 06001.

l' l

+

- Docket No. 50-298 TAC No. 53663 111 i

T 4

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

A 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 e

e t

iv

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

' VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

COOPER

1. INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of e

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. Priors 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 (E00), 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 4

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 This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the Nebraska Public Power District, the licensee for the Cooper Nuclear 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

~ _ . . . _ _ _

-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 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.

i As previously indicated,.the cases of Item 2.2.2 are evaluated in a separate section in which the guideline is p' resented; 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.

4 o

e A

O 4

g 2

3. ITEM '.2.2 2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

~

. - '3.1 Guideline 8

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 offvendor equipment technical information-(ETI) _is acknowledged:

4

- or otherwise verified.

i Th. i s 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, l auxiliary feedpumps,- emergency core cooling system (ECCS) pumps, batteries;

i. battery chargers, and valve operators, to-facilitate the exchange of current technical:information. The description should verify that controlled 2 procedures exist for handling this vendor technical information which ensure .

i that it is kept current and complete and that it !s incorporated into plant operating, maintenance and test procedures as is appropriate. ,

3.2 Evaluation-The licensee for the Cooper Nuclear Station responded to these-requirements with submittals dated November 4,'1983 2 and July 1, 1985.3 These submittals include information that describe.their past and current vendor interface programs. 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 this information and note the following.

The licensee's responses state that-they actively participated in the-Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) program. This program, titled

. Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program (VETIP),nincludes interaction with the NSSS vendor.

i I

!' 3 9

?

g e -,--n,,. ~n-s-~-w, e, --a , ,L.---- n-r--,--,e ,.-,v--- ---~,,,-,-,--+,,-,i-~w,~ -s, ,

v.- -

ren v.

~

The licensee ' committed' to haya in place a formal V:ndor Manual-Control (Technical Information) System (VMCS) by September 1986 which would

. periodically update .information and periodically review procedures and maintenance instructions to ensure that they contain all the updated information.

The following procedures are used byithe licensee.

~

. Administrative Procedure 1.26 Routing Procedure for Operating Experience .

-Review Engineering Procedure 3.11 Vendor Contact' for Verification of Manuals

-These procedures incorporate vendor equipment technical information as controlled documents-in the licensee's document control process. They also i incorporate this information in their maintenance instructions and operating procedures for safety-related equipment.

The licensee states that there is a formal program for periodic contact with the NSSS vendor. The licensee also contracted for the VMCS which is stated to include instructions for periodic information updates on the various vendors of safety-related equipment. '

3.3 Conclusion ,

We conclude that the licensee's response regarding program description is complete and, therefore, acceptable.

t i

b i

J i

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 INPO 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. It should al'so 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 I

confidence that a structure, system or component will perform satisfactorily in service and to ensure adequate quality assurance in accordance with Appendix B t. 10 CFR Part 50.

4.2 Evaluation In References 2 and 3, the licensee provided a brief description of the vendor interface program. Their description references the NUTAC/VETIP j program. The licensee states that plant instructions and procedures were being prepared 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 (NPRDS) 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.

f 5

i Through participation in the NRPDS program, the licensen 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 and Nuclear Network and NRC reports.

Based on the significance of the event, as determined by the screening review, INPO 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, and 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. This evaluation is documented and corrective actions are taken as determined necessary.

The licensee's. response states that procedures will exist by September 1986 to evaluate incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures.

4.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's response to this concern is adequate and, therefore, acceptable.

r

~

6

-, - - - -v..a n -- -r~ - .--.e --

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 cpplicant 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, in Reference 3, states that the division of responsibilities between them (the licensee) and suppliers of service on safety-related components is delineated in their Quality Assurance programs of approval and control of qualified suppliers and related procurement instructions.

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.

7

6. CONCLUSION-Based on our. review of the licensee's. response to the specific-

~

requirements of Item 2.2.2, we' find that the information provided by-the

~

licensee to resolve the concerns of~this program meet'the requirements of

- . Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable.

i s

e 4

i 9

2 I

u 4

8 r

7. REFERENGES

1. Letter, NRC (O. 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, Nebraska Public Power District (L. G. Kunel) to NRC (0. G. Eisenhut) " Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Required Actions Based on Generic Implications at Salem ATWS Events," November 4,1983.

~

3. Letter, Nebraska Public Power District (J. M. Pilant) to NRC

-(0. B. Vassallo), " Submittal of Additional Information for Generic Letter 83-28," July 1, 1985.

X 1

I I

5 9

. ..o r No-ne ;, r,oc .. .,-,

u s ucu.a. tuo.ro v co ..oM geca= 2=

L"o*" "','- BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7562 u

sit IN5ta CTICNS ON rwt 8tvEast 2 i,gave SLANr 2 7:f LE ANG $6sf erta CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTSi COOPER '**"""'*"'"",,,,

,Q,,,

March 1987 Afa""C.Udy .e ,,_***"""""....

i March 1987 C

8 enO tcrirass,wcas umiT NuwsER 7 *ts#CpWING CMGANilAllCN NAME ANO MAILING AGQA&ss nacsesele cases EG&G Idaho, Inc.

P. O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 06001

'Q. $PONSO9,NG QMGANilA F.QN N AMS 48 0 MasblNG AQOME$$ Ungruge la Capet ito rVPt QF MEPomT Division of PWR Licensing - A-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '""'*"'*""~'"'*'

Washington, DC 20555 12 SUP*LEwtNf amv NQrtl 2..sr..ct,m ,

This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Nebraska Public Power District regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for the Cooper Nuclear Station.

.. occuoi rA,.as. .... ....o c,oisc. ,rQ .

i . .,v,.g,s;r .

Unlimited Distribution

.. secunirv cL4:si,icariON l

1 r. , 1

.. ,os ri.. as onN eNoes rimus Unelassified o r. -a ,

Unclassified in wona o. .AG.s to amiG4

. _ _ _ .