ML20155E371

Technical Evaluation Rept Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28 Item 2.1 (Part 1) Equipment Classification River Bend Station,Unit 1

ML20155E371
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	07/31/1988
From:	Mccormick R EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20155E375	List: ML20155E371 ML20195G878 ML20195G886 ML20196A661
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-8142, GL-83-28, TAC-61031, NUDOCS 8810120268
Download: ML20155E371 (8)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. EGG-NTA-8142 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT t CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.1 () ART 1) EQUIPMENT CLAS3!FICATION 1 RIVER BENO STATION, UNIT 1 l l Docket No. 50 458 I R. D. McCormick ' t Published July 1988 i 1 Idkho National Engineering Laboratory [ EG4G Idaho, Inc. i i Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 . l i Preparec for the f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Wasnington, D.C. 20555 i Uncer 00E contract No. OE-ALO7-161001570 ' FIN No. 06001 2 I fhk/(f/2-{!a0)k gg 8 rP- 7

I t i t ABSTRACT This EG4G Idaho, Inc., report documents tho' review of the submittals from Gulf States utilities Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.1 (Part 1) for the River 8end Station, Unit 1. 1 t

                                                                                                            . i 4

Docket Nos. 50-458 . TAC No. 61031 e

FOREWORD , This report is supplied.as part of the program for evaluating licensee / applicant conform nce to Generic Letter 83-28, "Required Actions 8ased on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Event." This work is being condutted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering and System Technology, by IG&G

                                                                            ,                                                                                  P Idaho, Inc., Electrical, Instrumentation, and Control Systems Evaluation Unit.                                                                                                                                     .

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission funded this work under the authorization B&R Nos. 20-19-10-11-12, FIN No. 06001. i i i L Oceket No. 50 458 TAC No. 61031 l 4 1 6

CONTENTS 11 ABSTRACT .............................. FOREWORD .............................. i ii 1

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                                      .s .................                       2

2. PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATION 3

3. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

4. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

4 e iV

1. INTRODUCTIO'J AND SUPtiARY

                                                                                                                  ~

On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circui't breakers at Unit 1 of the Salem NLclear Pcwer Plant feiled to open upon an automatic reactor tri: signal from the reactor protection system. This incident was terminated manually by the operator about 30 second's after the initiation of the automatic trip signal. It was determined that the failure of the circuit , breakers was related to the sticking of the undervoittge trip attachment. 1 Prior to the incident, on February 22, 1983, an automatic trip signal was generated at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, based on steam generator low-low love.1 during plant start-up. In this case, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator, almost coincidertally with the automatic trip.. , Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive

 '                                                                                             Director of Operations (E00) directed the staff to investigate and report on

• i i the generic implications of the occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant. The results of the staff's incuiry are reported in NUREG-1000.

                                                                                               "Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant."1 As a result of this investigation, the NRC recuested (by Generic Letter I                                                                                               83-28, dated July 8, 1983)2 all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits ta

! respond to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events. l l Part 1 of item 2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 recuires the licensee or 1 ' applicant to confirm that all reactor trip system components are identified, i ) classified, and treated as safety-related, as indicated in the following l I I state ent: i ) ,' Licensees and applicants shall confirm that all components whose functioning is recuired to trip the reactor are identified as l safety-related on documents, procedures, and information handling l systems used in the plant to control, safety related activities,  ! including maintenance, work orcers, and parts replacement. , t ! 1 l i i

2. PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATION The licensee for River Bena Unit 1 (Gulf State' s Utilities Co.) provided 3

responses to Generic Letter 83-28 in submittals dated August 3, 1984 , May 20, 19854 , and May 12, 19885 , The Itcensee described the pre)csed equipment classification program for Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1, in it's first submittal, and indicated that this program was also applicable to item 2.1 (Part 1). In the second submittal, the licJnsee provided a brief description of the Item 2.1 (part 1) program. The program was to be implemented by August 15, 1985. In the May 12, 1988, submittal, the licensee confirmed that the e ecuipment c1,assification (Q-list) program had been implemented and was in use. The May 1988 submittal also included,a list of procedures, which were to ensure that all the reactor trip components were idthtified as

• safety-related on the plant documents, procedures, and information handling systems used to control safety-related activities.

l l 9 2

3. CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's submittals, we find that the licensee has identified the components necessary to perform a reactor trip and that these' components are classified, safety-related on associated procedures and documents. We, therefore, find that the licensee's responses rett the recuirements of item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 and are acceptable. .

O S t e 3

l

4. REFERENCES Generic feelicatiens of ATVS Events at the Salta Nuclear powee Diant, NUREG-1000, Volume 1 April 1983; Volume 2, July 1983.

2. NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all liconsees 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.

3. Letter, Gulf States Utilities Co. (J. E. Booker) to NRC (0, G.,

Eisenhut), August 3, 1984 4 Letter, Gulf States Utilities Co. (J. E. locker) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, (H. R. Denton) March 20, 1985.

5. Letter, Gulf States Utilities Co. (J. E. Booker) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, May 12, 1988.

j . e 4 e e 4

                                                               ,_______ _ _.                 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .}}