ML20211N807
| ML20211N807 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Kewaunee, Prairie Island, North Anna, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1986 |
| From: | Haroldsen R EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211N814 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7230, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8607080039 | |
| Download: ML20211N807 (11) | |
Text
.
ATTACHMENT 1
EGG-NTA-7230 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.1 (PART 1) EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMPONENTS)
INDIAN POINT 2 KEWAUNEE NORTH ANNA 1 AND 2 PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 AND 2 R. Haroldsen '
Published May 1986 EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Rrepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 Ch } j[f FIN No. 06001 c
Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 l
$ggCbk UI l
t
A8STRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals from I
selected operating 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 Indian Point 2 50-247 52846 Kewaunee 50-305 52848 North Anna 1 50-338 52858 North Anna 2 50-339 52859 Prairie Island 1 50-282 52870 Prairie Island 2 50-306 52871
(
1 11 i
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 being conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of PWR Licensinq-A, by the EG&G Idaho, Inc.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission funded this work under the authorization 8&R 20-19-10-11-3, FIN No. 06001.
I l
-~
~...
l 4
'l
(
h
i 1
CONTENTS ABSTRACT..............................................................
1) r0REw0R0..............................................................
1.
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
1 2.
PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATIONS.......................................
3 2.1 Indian Point 2.............................................
3 2.2 Conclusions................................................
3 2.3 Kewaunee...................................................
4 2.4 Conclusion.................................................
4 2.5 North Anna 1 and 2.........................................
5 2.6 Conclusion.................................................
5 2.7 Prairie Island 1 and 2.....................................
6 2.8 Conclusion.................................................
6 3.
GENERIC RErERENCES
....................l..........................
7 S
e
,m
,-e+
iv l
1.
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Untt 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, 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.
following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director of 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 1 incidents ar.e reported in NUREG-1000,
" Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant."I 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 license, and holders of construction permits to respond to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events.
This report is an evaluatic.. of the responses submitted from a group of similar pressurized water reactors for Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28.
The results of the reviews of several plant responses are reported on in this document to enhance review efficiency. The specific plants reviewed in this report were selected based on the similarity of plant
________.__ _desjgn_and convenience _of. review. The actual documents which were reviewed 1
o
for each evaluation are listed at the end of each plant evaluation. The generic documents 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 rea,ctor 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.
3 2
l
- 1
2.
PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATIONS 2.1 Indian Point 2. 50-247. TAC No. 52846 The licensee for the Indian Point 2 Nuclear Plant (Consolidated Edison Company of New York) provided a response to Item 2.1 (Part 1) in a submittal dated November 4, 1983. The submittal states that the plant systems and procedures were reviewed and a determination made that reactor trip system components are identified as Class-A (safety-related). The submittal also contains a discussion of the procedure and administrative control used to require identification of safety-related activities at the plant. These controls include maintenance, surveillance and parts replacement activities.
i i
2.2 Conclusions 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 activities 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.
Reference 1.
Letter, J. D. O'Toole, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, November 4. 1983.
2.3 Kewaunee. 50-305. TAC No. 52848 The licensee for the Kewaunee Nuclear Plant (Wisconsin Public Service Corporation) provided a response to Item 2.1 (Part 1) in a submittal dated
. _ _. December _.22J83.. A submi ttal. dated _ September _.21,.1984 also.prov_ided __
l relevant information. The submittals state that a review of reactor trip
{
system components whose operation is required to trip the reacter has been 4
I i
3 i
_,_.___ _ _, ~. _ _. _... _ _ _... _. ~
i l
i l
1 made in accordance with the requirements of this item. A safety-related component listing was completed to the level that would logically be used for purchasing purposes. The listing was made part of the plant information handling systems and used as a source document for proposing preventative maintenance procedures and work orders. Safety related components are designated QA Type 1 which invokes the higher level of the QA program controlling safety-related activities.
2.4 Conclusion Based on the review of the licensee's submittals, we find that the responses confirm that the components required to trip the reactor have been identified as safety-related and are appropriately designated on relevant plant documents. These responses, therefore, meet the
~
requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 and are acceptable.
References 1.
Letter, C. W. Giesler, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, December 22, 1983.
2.
Letter, D. C. Hintz, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, September 21, 1984.
2.5 North Anna Units 1 ano 2, 50-280/281. TAC Nos. 53020/53201 The licensee for North Anna Units 1 and 2 (Virginia Electric and Power Co.) provided responses to Item 2.1 (Part 1) in submittals dated November 4, 1983, February 8, 1985 and July 26, 1985. Review of this information showed that the licensee's program requires identification of RTS components as safety-related on all station documents, however they state that their program does not now include a complete itemized list of iiic RT5 cuinpuriciais uui uuc> i r:L iuuc cvs Iva t s ura prutc>> s us in c ivi. ^ ^ ^ _
wu components are not listed.
In addition, the program is being revised to include a more complete listing of components.
4
2.6 Conclusions Based on our review of these responses, we find the licensee's summary program description and the procedural revision to provide a more complete listing of RTS components, meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of the Generic Letter 83-28, and are,therefore acceptable.
References 1.
Letter, W. L. Stewart, Virginia Electric and Power Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 4, 1983.
2.
Letter, W. L. Stewart, Virginia Electric and Power Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, February 8, 1985.
3.
Letter, W. L. Stewart, Virginia Electric and Power Co., to H. L. Thompson, NRC, July 26, 1985.
2.7 Prairie Island Units 1 and 2. 50-282/306. TAC Nos. 52870/52871
~
The licensee for Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 (Northern States Power Co.) responded to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) in a submittal dated November 4, 1983. In the submittal the licensee stated that all components required to trip the reactor were reviewed and verified to be classified as safety-related with the exceptions the turbine stop valve limit switches and turbine auto stop oil-pressure switches.
These exceptions have been reviewed by the staff and found acceptable The submittal diso states that relevant plant documents were reviewed for conformity with the requirements of the generic letter.
2.8 Conclusion Based on the licensee's submittal we find that the response confirm e that the components required to trip the reactor have been identified as safety-related and appropriately referenced on relevant plant documents.
5
The response, therefore meets the requirement of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable.
Reference 1.
Letter, D. M. Musolf, Northe.rn States Power Co., to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, NRC, November 4, 1983.
i i
h 6
3.
GENERIC REFERENCES 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 Licenseas of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating License, and Holders of Construction Permits,
" Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-29)," July 8, 1983.
O 7