ML20245B539

Final Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.1 - Equipment Classification for All Other Safety-Related Components,Summer, Informal Rept

ML20245B539
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	05/31/1987
From:	Vanderbeek R EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20215L626	List: ML20215L623 ML20245B539
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7406, GL-83-28, TAC-53720, NUDOCS 8706260129
Download: ML20245B539 (18)

Text

7 vapen.xp :-ce -

(w~q;/f,y,i+%,a. h M9MMMY $m a, =

• M 'adffMd m

97t ne ~#y', ' t. b s

am L a g}

x ; g&+k

^ ym y&

y

'W

.% Q gfR w[ m2 mg x,

%g ye r..g.'y 9, g l:

y.

-p.g~ w,y 3 z.y:;

a

. LL

.Mp.d l T #9

' q i+.i p0@

EGG-NTA-7406

,a

^ g May 1987

)

K 1

my+a

.,s w

~

qq.,~,

q' ::q 3 4p Sc3 1

3y-

', ~

f.l, h:

y 9,'s1l ~ ' ' ~ f ^jl:' 'i

,,/'

. ((

bd

yv _,,, (.?$

) (( '

T2 %yk,,7:.

' X ^; h INFORMAL REPORT 4

g %lgj 8 %:

.9 m m.,

i

, 3 j,'.;Qh '

1. g; i

@$p,J y,j 3 R.

1... ~ S 4

y,'

e g..ug v

$.Lg, Q,. y'

g

~.4 g

tjQ.

t

}f,. [

. jg,g y j f yif

~

a g

ny

p,gg,,,p ;% ", j

, 3 p, F lLabofatory[m @ %[ h

,.. 9 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.2.1--

O

, 4.

/

49 888fMFM n.s EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY m.

> hp d RELATED COMPONENTS: SUMMER d:

' wm a

g m

~ m;(

(,

h L GMins'ged): " ^ ; %;f Q

s. v.

'n'b the U.S YA E Wjepsnnia%

R. VanderBeek d

.., N8khh A

!!.I y.

A-ag#,;b::. g, [a

,%{#q}#,

m, p

~n&,',. 3

, [ Q*

% :" m v

's J fi M

y > h[

r yy? f:L + ~

h; g%%,

f./.

_ y.y n

%m(W,,.n$Q~y%

m. ~

y %y y-

~u- >(

.v 3

I gg b, '

m--

w; >;

n y'p',% g d % $

~

rs; kJR a

e 7;., a m., + 3 w,e

,, m.,;

n. s m

s.

. n., n([r > +

.' s r

s

v. o..

,e,. ~w 9

.e

' g R,J,.

m.,

m a

r ?. @w! s J

d. )

l.: M 4 %

g m@

r-i as, s

o i

.. u - - g),,

.h,h

.*c y

i %

d.G

b:

.... U/

i

,~

b..h Yl ij j

\\f{

., ;;f_ {( ', g \\ e 7b + *4 u t-M ,a, hp M. ( J;pA a w y e. S: 4:;go y^-. n. r g 700..,fy ?cy p

v,2 97 4

, ^w .. WY -'W %,s b N /! pd(!n ' ', :N e \\ l %, f. em J9 L ,u p n w.w.8m .. l9 e M:a..x; ~@un. -% %p :J-A ~ %end . a n g s; f gr4 p, 1 s.u t a . p@+ %my)b < y v< t w &.; %m ~,.y eq mw w b

g w

,A'M' gh %. y: L dL 4 e %gW ' W, s ! f T C N ", M "\\ M.- 3) .e. m <. @. Q f$ khd k., 1:.. m[ > h l .; 4 g > : q y n g,l# -m

h. m. :n pc ' L l(g 3

W f vi p' >. q g g g g 4 4 y y 7 h M M,6gh g g c - 4 p .'.s4 Prepared for the ' _workp%vedunder; w' erhv U'S'. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q p) 2 ~.h. ' * = i? ]{ j,; $%.uMQgg'~h ' j 870s ^ " +M fDR ;260 ' WO50g m Ayf Y 0500039 5 ,n"Q%,.m..,,_mm PDR c v n ~.,l fj g,,.. \\ \\ YN U ,: Nf 0 .j' z maA

g W

^

p 4-jump p }). s.. 5 e-e DISCLAIMER. This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United j States Government. Neither tne 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 not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial'- . product, 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 opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. i l L o C r. t

lg ,s r EGG-NTA-7406-TECHNICAL. EVALUATION REPORT l CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.1-- EQUIPMENT' CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: SUMMER I Docket No. 50-395 R. Vander8eek' \\ 'i Published May 1987 ' Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho. Inc. Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 4 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. 06001 3

p ') i i r l

a.

l .l 'l i + r n; i .+- l ABSTRACT-9 C 6 1 This EG&G' Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals for-the Virgil'C. Summer Nuclear Station for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28,. Item 2.2.1. i ,l l 1 I t.. Docket No. 50-395 TAC No. 53720 r i

"; 4' .c e 4 j i i .i FOREWORD n This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating j ' 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 Comission, Office of Nuclear

. Reactor Regu1'ation, Division of.PWR Licensing-A, by EG&G Idaho, Inc.: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission funded this ' work under the authorization B&R'20-19-10-11-3, FIN No. D6001. Docket No. 50-395 TAC No. 53720 i m

Y a r 4: CONTENTS 'ABSTRAC'T.............................................................. ii) FOREWOR0...............................................................iii. li INTR 000CTION-..................................................... - 1 2. ' REVIEW CONTENT'AND F0RMAT(........................................- ' 2 3.- ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM............................................. 3? 3.1; LGuideline.................................................. 3 3.2- . Evaluation.................................................. 3 '3.3.

== Conclusion:== 3

4.

ITEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA........................... 4 4.1 . Guideline.................................................. 4- '4.2 . Evaluation................................................. 4 L4.3 Conc 1usion'................................................. 4- ~ 5.' 'ITEN'2.2.1.2 - INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM....................... 5-

5.1' ~ Guideline..................................................-

5 '5.2 Evaluation-................................................. 5 5.3L Conclusion................................................. 5 6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF: EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING'........... 6 6.1. Guideline.................................................. 6. 6.2 Evaluation................................................. 6-6.3-Conclusion................................................. 6 7; ' ITEM 2.2.1.4 . MANAGEMENT CONTROLS............................... 7 7.1 . Guideline.................................................. 7-7. 2 -- Evaluation................................................. 7 '7.3-Conclusion..................................................- 7 o iv

s 8. ~ ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT............... 8 8.1- ' Guideline.................................................. 8 8.2 Evaluation:................................................. 8 8.3 Conclusion................................................. 8' '9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS.................. 9 9.1: Guideline.................................................. 9

10. CONCLUSION.......................................................

10

11. REFERENCES.......................................................

11 i i l I l' V i

1 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.1-- EQUIPMENT' CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: SUMMER 1. INTRODUCTION ] l On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of j the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip signal from the reactor protection system. This incident was terminated u nually by the operator about'30 seconds after the initiation of the automatic trip signal. The failure of the circuit breakers.was determined j 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 I . 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 staf f 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 li ense, and holders of construction 1 i permits to respond to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events. l This report is an evaluation of the response submitted by the South = Carolina Electric and Gas Company for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for l Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28. The actual documents reviewed as a [ ~ part of this evaluation is listed in the references at the end of this report. 1

o 2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee / applicant to submit, for~ staff review, a description of their programs for classification of their safety-related. equipment. includes supporting ,information, in considerable, detail,1as indicated in the guidelines preceding the evaluation of each item. 1 As previously stated, each of the six items of Item 2.2.1'is evaluated in'a separate section in which the guideline is presented; an evaluation.of lj L the.1'icensee's/ applicant's response is made; and conclusions about its acceptability are drawn, i b I I i

i .I '. [ / 3. ITEM 2.2.1 1 PROGRAM ( ' 3.1 Guideline Licensee and~ applicants should confirm that an equipment . classification. program is in place which will provide assurance that all . safety-related components are designated as safety-related on plant i o , documentation such as procedures, system descriptions, test,and maintenance instructions and in,information. handling systems so that personnel performing activities.that affect such safety-related components'are aware that they are working on safety-related components and are guided by ~ safety-related procedures and constraints. Licensee and. applicant responses which' address the features of this program are evaluate'd-in the 'f remainder of this. report. 3.2 Evaluation 1 l i The licensee for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station provided a response 2 to Generic Letter 83-28'on November 4, 1983 and April 1,'1987.3 These submittals included information that describes their safety-related equipment classification 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. The licensee has provided a description'of the' equipment classification program for the identification of safety-related activities for repair, maintenance. and procurement. The response does clearly confirm that all components designated as safety-related are also properly

designated on plant documents such as procedures, system descriptions, test and maintenance instructions and in the information handling l

system (CHAMPS). d 1 3.3 Conclusion g The licensee's' response for this item is considered to be complete and i is' acceptable. k 3 ) ) 4

4 i 4.1 ITEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA 4.1 Guideline The. applicant or licensee should confirm that their program used for equipment classification includes criteria used for identifying components as safety-related. 4.2 Evaluation The_ licensee's response states that'the classification criteria used to determine whether a structure, system, or component ~is safety-related are described in Section 3.2 of the FSAR. Section 3.2.1 of the FSAR states-that'the designation of structures, components, and systems as Seismic Category:I is.in conformance with the recommendation of Regulatory Guide 1.29.for balance of plant. Components and systems within the scope' i of the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS)~ vendor satisfy the requirements of ANSI N18.2,.1973. Electrical components are classified as either-Class 1E as defined in IEEE-Std-380-1975 or as non-nuclear safety (NNS). J i 4.3 Conclusion 1' The licensee's response for this item is considered to be complete and.. is acceptable. i 4 j

5. ITEM 2.2.1.2 - INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM 5.1 Guideline The licensee or applicant should confirm that the program for ' equipment. classification includes an'information handling system that~is used to identify safety-related components. The response.should confirm 'that' this information han'dling system includes a list of safety-related equipment and that procedures' exist which govern its developmentfand validation. 5.2 Evaluation The licensee describes his information handling system for identifying safety-related components as a computerized method of. listing..This system is known as the Computerized History and Maintenance Planning System (CHAMPS). L .The licensee's response states that Technical Services procedures. exist whichLgovern'the' development and validation of the information handling' system,:and Station Administrative Procedures-axist which address the applications and maintenance of CHAMPS. 5.3 Conclusion The licensee's response for this item is considered to be complete and is acceptable. 'e 5

g-7 6.o ITEM 2.2.1.3L-USE OF EQUIPMENT: CLASSIFICATION LISTING ~.1 Guideline 6 x. 9 The' licensee's or applicant's description should confirm that their j program-for equipment classification includes criteria and procedures governing the use of the equipment classification information handling , system to determine that an activity is safety-related and what procedures for maintenance, surveillance, parts replacement and other activities L ' defined in-the introduction to 10 CFR 50,. Appendix B, apply to safety-related components. [ 6.2 Evaluation .l 1 1The. licensee's'responst states-that when activities defined in'the Lintroduction to 10 CFR 50,' Appendix B, are to be performed, both the-organization.which will perform an activity and'the Quality Services . organization verify proper classification of work procedures. This is performed by' checking approved design documents thus assuring procedures ' ? appropriate to the safety classification are.used. At.this time, work or j procurement package documentation is also reviewed for compliance to the ' design docunents, FSAR, approved drawings, etc. If the safety classification of the affected components can not be clearly determined, a ' disposition conce ling the subject activity is provided by Engineering. The licensee's. response further states that Nuclear.0perations Department procedures exist which govern the application and handling of l safety-related activities. These procedures require that safety classification be made prior to performing work. 6.3 Conclusion i -The licensee's response for this item is considered to be complete and is acceptable. 6 i l 1 )

s

s 7.

-ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS .u '7.1: Guidelines (The. applicant or-licensee should confirm that the management controls use'd to verify-that the procedures for preparation, validation and routine utilization of the information handling system have been followed. T ( l3 7.2 Evaluation The licensee's'r'esponse states that the management.contro.ls: utilized teLverify that'the procedures utilized.in performing activities-associated i 'with1 safety-related components'are as specified in the FSAR Chapter 17'and! . Section 6 of the Technical Specifications and. described in the Operational QA Plan and associated procedures. These controls consist primarily of QA ' - audits and:surveillances.z 7.3 Conclusion The licensee's response for this item is considered to be complete'and' Lis acceptable. { 1 I ~ ) '4 ( i (;>,: ) 7

<\\ 8. ITEM 2.2.1.5l DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT.- 8.1-Guideline The applicant's.or licensee's submittal should'd'ocument'that past "~ usage demonstrates that appropriate design verification and qualification-testing is.specified for the procurement of-safety-related components and -parts. The.. specifications'should include qualification testing for-expected' safety' service conditions and provide support for the applicant's/ licensee's receipt of testing documentation to support-the . limits of' life. recommended byithe supplier. :If such documentation-is not available, confirmation _that the present program meets these requirements should be provided. L 8.2 Evaluation The licensee's response' states that when replacement' equipment or parts are ordered for safety'related equipment, they are procured via safety related procurement documents. Engineering specifies the technical 1 -requirements, including design verification and qualification testing, included on these documents. The-entire purchase requisition package is reviewed by QA prior to.a purchase order being placed. If parts or equipment which have been procured via nonsafety-related purchasing procedures'are needed for use in a safety related application, they are ' dedicated in accordance with criteria established by Engineering and ] reviewed by QA before they can be installed..These processes are described in' appropriate procedu'res. 8.3 Conclusion 1 '~

The licensee's response to this item is considered to be complete and is acceptable.

a I I 8

9. ITEM 2.2.1.6' "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS 9.1 Guideline The Generic Letter 83-28 states that the licensee's equipment ' classification' program should include (in. addition to the' safety-related- . components) a broader class'of components designated as "Important to . Safety."- However, since the Generic Letter does not require the applicant / licensee to furnish this information as part of their response, review of this item will not be performed. x 4 l J J a 9 i

4 10. CONCLUSION Based on our-revie'w of the licensee's response to the specific - requirements of-, Item 2.2.1, we find that the information provided by the licensee to' resolve the concerns of Items 2.2.1 meet the requirements of i Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable. Item 2.2.1.6'was not reviewed as noted in Section 9 of this report. i 3 e 10 l

11.. REFERENCES 1.

NRC Letter, D. G..Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, App 1tcants for.0perating License, and Holders of Construction Permits, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implication of Salem ATWS Events -(Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983. 2. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company letter, O. W. Dixon Jr., to j ~ H. R. Denton, NRC, November 4, 1983. 3. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company letter, D. A. Nauman to i H. R. Denton,:NRC, April'1, 1987. 'l i 1 -l e a' 38274 11

1 i* 1 RSPow mum 9 Ad.Assesse er fs0C.aer vor me,,rea,s 8 SAC PORM 3B U.S. NUCLSA3 K81ULATORY CC- = k'- SISUOGRAPHIC DATA' SHEET EGG-NTA-7406 l j e.,e,m o.,so YYlTLl 4NO 3v8 fiTL4 3 LEAvt SLANn

CONFOR!1ANCE TO GEtlERIC. LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.1---

I 'EQUIPt1ENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL'OTHER' SAFETY-RELATED

C0t1PONENTS:

SUtiMER

• oA" a*Poa"o=P'ateo i

1 l Y.4. .o~r- , s tur o..e tiay : 1987. Ri-VanderBeek . o r n.Po 11 v o l nan

mour, May 190~

i esso uimo onoamization name amo ua Liao moomess teae.m te c,

a. Paca.cTrTassowoan umir mvmesa i

EG&G Idaho..Inc. e la ca ca =r avveia P.'O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID' 83415 D6001 i

10. $Pom8omiNQ omaanitatioM maut amo LaaiLINo acontsS isavnear le Casst tie. TYPt OF ASPoRT Division of PWR Licensing - A

' Office of' Nuclear. Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission = Psaico aviaso <>-~~ Washington, DC 20555

63. SuP'L8MENYamv NOTis s 3. AestaaC7 (J00 =o,es er rous This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittal from the South Carolina Electric.and Gas Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station.

14 DOCUMSNT ANa6flis a s EEvwonD&soE5CaiPvons 16 avasLAsi6siv STAftMENT Unlimited Distribution 16 $5CumityCLA85splCATIch IThe sapes . ioi~ri...asso,i+.No.o rs=$ Unelassified L <r..,,, Unclassified ,, ~uussm o. c,ns i,aica { -}}