ML20206M396

Safety Evaluation Accepting Util 831108 & 850509 Confirmations That Program Exists for Identifying & Classifying All Reactor Trip Sys Components as safety- Related,Per Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.1(Part 1)

ML20206M396
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	08/15/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20206M386	List: ML20206M382 ML20206M396
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8608210149
Download: ML20206M396 (3)

Text

/  %, UNITED STATES T o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

j wAsHWGTON, D. C. 20066

\,...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION CONCERNING GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.1 (PART 1)

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMP 0NENTS)

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT DOCKET N0. 50-213

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

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 generator low-low level during plant start-up. 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 Nuclear Regulatory Consnission (NRC) Executive Director for Operations (ED0) directed the staff to investigate and report on the generic implications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant. The results of l the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem unit l 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 requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8, 19831) 8608210149 860815 PDR ADOCK 05000213 P PDR

'd all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to generic issues raised h ;.he analyses of these two ATWS events.

This report is an evaluation cif the response submitted by Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) to Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28. The actual documents reviewed as part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of the evaluation.

Item 2.1 (Part 1) requires the licensee to confirm that all reactor trip system components are identified, classified and treated as safety-related as indicated in the following statement:

Licensees and applicants shall confinn that all components whose functioning is required to trip the reactor are identified as safety-related on documents, procedures, and infonnation handling systems used in the plant to control safety-related activities, including maintenance, work orders, and parts replacement.

2.0 EVALUATION CYAPC0 responded to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) with submittals 2 3 dated November 8, 1983 and May 9, 1985 . The suomittals state that all components whose function is required to trip the reactor are identified as Category 1 (safety-related) on their Material, Equipment and Parts List (MEPL)andthatsafety-relatedactivitiesonthesecomponents including maintenance, work orders and parts replacement will be completed using Category 1 controls.

3.0 CONCLUSION

Based on our review of these responses, we find the licensee's statements confirm that a program exists for identifying, classifying and treating components that are required for performance of the reactor trip function as safety-related. This program meets the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of the Generic Letter 83-28, and is acceptable.

4.0 REFERENCES

1. NRC Letter, 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, W. G. Counsil, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 8, 1983.

3. Letter, J. F. Opeka, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co., to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, May 9,,1985.

.-- - - _ . . . - _ - - - _ _ . .- - - . --- - --- . . - . - . -