ML20214R437

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

ML20214R437
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/31/1987
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20214R424	List: ML20214R422 ML20214R437
References
CON-FIN-D-6002 EGG-NTA-7560, EGG-NTA-7560-ERR, GL-83-28, TAC-64213, NUDOCS 8706080137
Download: ML20214R437 (16)

Text

..

1 4 .

4

EGG-NTA-7560

_i March 1987 i

i i INFORMAL REPORT

~-

. :l J.

i' i /daho CONFOR!!ANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

National '

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: COMANCHE PEAK-1 and -2 Engineering Laboratory {

Managed - A1an C. Udy by the U.S. I

- Department ,

ofEnergy ,

i i

3 i

d'D # "** Prepared for the n%,for,,,m, 11. S. NilCLEAR REGlJLATORY COMMISSION DOC Cont,act No. DE-AC07 76tD015M P

' B706080137'870319 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR

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

~ >

a s

DISCLAIMER This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Govemment. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or asstimes any legal habikty or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparetus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not ininnge pnvately owned nghts. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsemert, recommendation, or favonng by the United States Govemment 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 thereaf.

4 W

i

. .n . . ,

EGG-NTA-7560.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT. ,

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

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

COMANCHE PEAK-1 AND -2 Docket Nos. 50-445/50-446 Alan C. Udy Published March 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 D

Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. 06002 l l

1

f ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Texas Utilities Generating Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2,.for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric. Station.

Docket Nos. 50-445/50-446 TAC No. 64213-11

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 baing conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of PWR Licensing-A, by EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRR l 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. 06002.

l l

l l

1 1

s l Docket Nos. 50-445/50-446 j TAC No. 64213 2

! iii

, CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................................................... 11 FOREWORD .............................................................. iii

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... I

2. REVIEW CONTENT AND. FORMAT ........................................ 2

3. ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTI0N'................................. 3 .

4 3.1 Guideline .................................................. 3 3.2 Evaluation ................................................. 3 3.3 Conclusion ................................................. 4

4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED ...................................................... 5 -

4.1 5 Guideline ..................................................

. 4.2 Evaluation ................................................. 5 4.3 Conclusion ................................................. 6

5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE l .

SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT .............................. 7-i

. 5.1 Guideline .................................................. 7

5.2 Evaluation ................................................. 7 ,

5.3 Conclusion ................................................. 7

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

7. REFERENCES ....................................................... 9 r

I t

1 1

i

. e I

}

4 1

l IV .i J

4

___- , ,_- , , , , . _ . - . _ , r _. . , . _ . , _ _ , , .,

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

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

COMANCHE PEAK-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 gererator 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) 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.

This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the Texas

Utilities Generating Company, the applicant for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, for Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28. The documents i reviewed as a part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of this report.

i 1

2. REVIEt1 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 program's 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 l

l 1

2 I

l

- - _ . _ _ - - - )

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

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 i

~

that receipt of vendor equipment technical information (ETI) is acknowledged ,

or otherwise verified.

l 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, i 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 l'

I The applicant for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 21, 1953,2

$ April 30, 19843and June 7, 1985.4 These submittals include information >

that briefly describes their past and current vendor interface programs. In the review of the applicant's response to this item, it was assumed that the I

information and documentation supporting this program is available for audit upon request. We have reviewed this information and note the.following.

i j

The applicant's responses state that they actively participate in the i

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 cther electric

utilities. The applicant also states that they receive information from Westinghouse (the NSSS vendor) and General Electric via existing l

1 4

i 3

4, __ _ , . . . . . _ _ _

interfaces. The applicant states tha't procedures are in place and used for evaluating and distributing information gained from any source and for incorporating it into applicable procedures.

3.3 Conclusion

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

O i

i 4

l 1

1

.l

)

4 i

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 imolement 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.

4.2 Evaluation In Reference 3, the applicant 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.

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, t

5 5

Through participation in the NPRDS program, the applicant submits engineering information, failure reports and operating histories for review under the SEE-IN program. Through the SEE-IN program, the Institute of i 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 applicant evaluates the information to determine applicability to the facility. This evaluation is documented and corrective actions are taken as determined necessary.

The applicant's response states that procedures now exist to review and evaluate incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures.

The applicant also states that they will contact other vendor's when they determine such contact is helpful, necessary or beneficial.

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

l 0

l 6

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 of

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

5.2 Evaluation The applicant's response commits 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 the applicant's commitment to implement and use the VETIP program acceptable.

I l

4 I

e .

i i

l

6. CONCLUSION

<s 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 meet the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable.

t 4

9 8

I i

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 Basea on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.

2. Letter, Texas Utilities Generating Company (B. R. Clements) to NRC '

(D. G. Eisenhut), " Supplement I to the CPSES Response to Generic , , /; (

Letter 83-28," November 21, 1983, Log No. TXX-4082, File No. 10035.

3. Letter, Texas Utilities Generating Company (B. R. Clements) to NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), " Supplement 2 to the CPSES Response to Generic Letter 83-28," April 30, 1984, Log No. TXX-4162, File No.10035. ,

4. Letter, Texas Utilities Generating Company (J. W. Beck) to NRC (V. S. Noonan), "NRC Generic Letter 83-28," June 7, 1985, Log No. TXX-4486, File No. 10010, 10035 clo.

1 f

4 s

h i

9

w s. ucamiowuro , co- .o. , u on won-c. :.,r,oc .~,. -,

.c,,,o=

, ==

'M'2#,'- BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7560 sat emst.uct CNS ON r . .svgast 3 gg.vgggA%s a rm t .Ns gusvirge CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-

• c^ri as*c" c:='urio RELATED C0ftPONENTS: COMANCHE PEAK-1 AND -2 vos - . ..

l March 1987

. .e r-o. ..

• mari aecar sauno Alan C. Udy won r ,* vt..

March  ! 1987 -

,~2 c.4.~a. r ,o, ~... .~o .. g.so .oc..;s ~.., < c , . .. aa cr. r.a o.. o~,1 won.

,.IG . AG Idaho, Inc.

• P. O. Box 1625 . .. c. c... r ~ eon.

Idaho Falls, ID 83415 06002 i,.r ..o .uo.1

,o se, a.. o a. .~,4. r.o s ,... ..o .. s,~o .co. . u ,,,, <, c ,

Division of PWR Licensing - A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . ia cocave.<o - - . -

llashington, DC 20555

. : ie-u . r... oru 3 .. r..srm..

This EG8G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Texas Utilities Generating Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2,for Comanche Peak-1 and -2.

'I i

.. m .o.~r.~. .. .....,,0 c.auc. ,rc.. . . . . . . u . . s. n .

$7Aftvt%f Unlimited Distribution acu. v.esu... car,os o rn,. pe,

,,as r1,. ...o.is.sesoti vi Unclassif ted a r. ,,

Unclassified a won. c, ..ou

,..,c.