ML20211C492

SER Accepting Util Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.1 (Part 1) Re Documentation of safety-related Components Required for Reactor Trip.Item 2.1 (Part 2) Re Vendor Interface Unresolved

ML20211C492
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	10/14/1986
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20211C483	List: ML20211C479 ML20211C492
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8610210382
Download: ML20211C492 (3)

Text

, Enclosure SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.1 (PART 1)

EOUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMPONENTS)

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368 INTRODUCTION AND SUWARY 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 I 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 coin-cidentally with the automatic trip.

Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO), 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 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 Comission (NRC) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8,19831 )

all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events.

8610210382 861014 PDR ADOCK 05000368 P PDR

This report is an evaluation of the response submitted by Arkansas Power & Light Company, the licensee for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, for 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 report.

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 confirm that all components whose i

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, in-cluding maintenance, work orders, and parts replacement.

EVALUATION The licensee for Arkensas Nuclear One, Unit 2 responded to the requirements of l Item 2.1 (Part 1) witn -'bnittals dated November 5,19832 and July 26, 19853 ,

( The licensee stated in these submittals that all components that are required to i

! perform the reactor trip function were reviewed to verify that these components are identified as safety-related equipment. The licensee further stated that the l

procedures used for the identified components were reviewed and found to require the appropriate measures required for safety-related components.

1 1

\

L

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 therefore acceptable.

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, J. R. Marshall, Arkansas Power and Light Co. , to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 5, 1983.

i 3. Letter, J. T. Enos, Arkansas Power and Light Co., to E. il. Butcher, NRC, July 26, 1985.

EGG-NTA-7243 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.1 (PART 1) EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMPONENTS)

ARKANSAS 1 AND 2 CALVERT CLIFFS 1 AND 2 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 DAVIS-BESSE I R. Haroldsen Published July 1986 i

i EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls Idaho 83415 i

Prepared for the

, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 l Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 l FIN No. 06001 O/ yfs h b i.

Obwu '*

I

l A8STRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals from selected operating and applicant Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) plants for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.1 (Part 1). The following plants are included in this review.

Plant Name Docket Number TAC Number 1

Arkansas 1 50-313 52816 Arkansas 2 50-368 52817 i

Calvert Cliffs 1 50-317 52825 Calvert Cliffs 2 50-217 52826 Crystal River 3 50-302 52830 Davis-Besse 1 50-346 52831 i

l

's .

t

CONTENTS A8STRACT .............................................................. 11 FOREWORD .............................................................. .111

1. INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

......................................... I

2. PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATIONS ....................................... 3 2.1 Arkansas One 1 and 2 ....................................... 3 2.2 Conclusion ................................................. 3 2.3 Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2 ..................................... 4 2.4 Conclusion ................................................. 4 2.5 Crystal River 3 ............................................ 5 2.6 Conclusion ................................................. 5 2.7 Davis-Besse 1 .............................................. 5 2.8 Conclusions ................................................ 6

3. GENERIC REFERENCES ............................................... 6 I

i iv i

l l

1 I

l l

l l

.e.w-- -

,-y,----,w----.-.pw.--,g -

-m.-- - ,---r-- . - - .,, . - - -revn-ve-,---w--- ew w w--

n se- - -e.- - = .---e.y- e e--wt=---,-e=ew --e*---w---'e - "'"-

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMARY 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 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 level during plant startup. In this case, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip.

t following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director of Operations (EDO), directed the staff to investigate the 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 1 incidents are reported in NUREG-1000

" Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Sales Nuclear Power Plant." As a result of this investigation, the Commission (NRC) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28, dated July 8, 1983)2 all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events.

This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted from a group of sin 11ar pressurized water reactors for Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic I

Letter 83-28.

The results of the reviews of several plant responses are reported on inthisdocumenttoeThancereviewefficiency. The specific plants l reviewed in this report were selected based on the sta11arity of plant l design and convenience of review. The actual documents which were reviewed l

l 1

i 1

I l

. for each evaluation are listed at the end of each plant evaluation. The generic document referenced in this report are listed at the end of the report.

Part 1 of Item 2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requires the licensee or applicant 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 confirm that all components whose functioning is required to trip the reactor are identified as safety-related on documents, procedures, and information handling systems used in the plant to control safety-related activities, including maintenance, work orders, and parts replacement.

4 e

1 l

[

2 l

i-

.v .

9-

. . ~.

! - 2. PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATIONS 2.1 Arkansas Nuclear One. Units 1 and 2. 50-318/368. TAC Nos. 52816/52817 i The licensee for Arkansas Nuclear One Units 1 and 2 (Arkansas Power l

and Light Co.) provided response to Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic -

Letter 83-28 in submittals dated November 5, 1983, May 27, 1985 and July 26, 1985. The first submittal describes the plant equipment

classification system as it existed at that time. It also describes the program used to control the safety-related activities at the plant. The Q-list is the basic document used to determine the classification of components but had been developed only to the systems level. A plan was described for upgrading the Q-list to the component level. The subsequent submittals (the May 27, 1985 submittal for Unit 1 and July 26, 1985 submittal for Unit 2) confirmed that the development of the component listing had been completed for reactor trip system components. The

] procedures utilized for the identified components were also reviewed and found to require the appropriate measures required for safety-related

]

components.

2.2 Conclusion f

Based on the review of the licensee's submittals, we find that the l

components necessary to perform reactor trip are classified as i safety-related and that activities relating to safety-related components ,

are controlled by procedures which reflect the necessary requirements for handling safety-related components. We, therefore, find that the i licensee's responses meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic "

Letter 83-28 and are acceptable.

( ,

l References t

i 1. Letter, J. R. Marshall Arkansas Power and Light Co., to l D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 5, 1983.

i

! 3 l

l 1

~

i

- - ~ ~ . . . , _- _ .,, _ , - , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ --- - _ ____ - - . . . -

2. Letter, J. T. Enos Arkansas Power and Light Co., to J. F. Stolz, NRC, May 27, 1985.

3. Letter, J. T. Enos. Arkansas Power and Light Co., to E. J. Butcher, NRC, July 26, 1985.

2.3 Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2. 50-317/318. TAC Nos. 52825/52826 The licensee for Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2 (Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.) provided a response to Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 in a submittal dated November 5, 1983. The submittal states that the components whose functioning is required to trip the reactor are identified as safety-related on documents, procedures, and information handling systems used in the plants to control safety-related activities. This statement was said to be based on a review of the plant Q-list, Maintenance Requests.

Facility Change Requests, Preventative Maintenance Cards and Stock Spare Parts Index.

2.4 Conclusion Based on the review of the licensee's submittal, we find that the licensee's response confirms that the components required to trip the reactor are identified as safety-related, and that documents used to initiate design, maintenance, or procurement require identification of safety-related components. The licensee's response, therefore, meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28, and is acceptable.

Reference

1. Letter, A. E. Lundvall, Jr., Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 5, 1983.

4 r

. \

2.5 Crystal River Unit 3. 50-302. TAC No. 52830 The licensee for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant (Florida Power Corp.) provided response to Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 in submittals dated November 4,1983 and July 31, 1984. The submittals state that the licensee has verified that all components whose function is required to trip the reactor are classified as safety-related. The plant

" Safety Listing" . identifies the safety-related components and is used to determine if an activity is safety-related during the activity planning stage.

2.6 Conclusion Based on the review of the licensee's submittals, we find that the licensee's responses confirms that the components required to trip the reactor are identified as safety-related, and that documents used to initiate design, maintenance, or procurement require identification of safety-related components. The licensee's responses, therefore, meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28, and are acceptable.

References

1. Letter, G. R. Westafer, Florida Power Corp., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRL, November 4, 1983.

2. Letter, G. R. Westafer, Florida Power Corp., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, July 31, 1984.

e

, 2.7 Davis-Besse 1. 50-346. TAC No. 52831 The licensee for the Davis Besse Nuclear Plant (Toledo Edison Co.)

provided a response to Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 in a submittal dated December 9, 1983. The submittal describes the equipment classification system used at the plant. The system is based on a Q-list S

• ~

• which is system oriented but which has been developed to the component level for the reactor trip system.

Quality Assurance requirements are defined for the safety-related structures, systems and components identified in the Q-list in plant documents such as engineering drawings, bills of material, design specification, contracts, purchase orders, procedures and instruction.

2.8 Conclusion i

Based on the review of the licensee's submittal, we find that the licensee's response confirms that the components required to trip the reactor are identified as safety-related, and that documents used to initiate design, maintenance, or procurement require identification of safety-related components. The licensee's response, therefore, meets the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28, and is acceptable.

References

1. Letter, R. P. Crouse, Toledo Edison Co., to J. F. Stolz, NRC, i

December 9, 1983.

3. GENERIC REFERENCES l 1. Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, NUREG-1000, Volume 1 April 1983; Volume 2 July 1983.

2. 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.

I i

I i

l 6

l I

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