ML20214G959

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.1 (Part 2) Equipment Qualification (Reactor Trip Sys Components), Selected GE BWR Plants

ML20214G959
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Hatch, Grand Gulf, LaSalle, 05000000
Issue date:	03/31/1986
From:	Haroldsen R EG&G IDAHO, INC.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20214G961	List: ML20214G959 ML20214J971 ML20214J991
References
CON-FIN-D-6001, CON-FIN-D-6002 EGG-NTA-7179, GL-83-28, TAC-52842, TAC-52844, TAC-52845, TAC-52850, TAC-52854, TAC-57731, NUDOCS 8605280198
Download: ML20214G959 (12)

Text

- __

EGG-NTA-7179 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.1 (PART 1) EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMPONENTS)

SELECTED GENERAL ELECTRIC BOILING WATER REACTOR PLANTS GRAND GULF 1 AND 2

' HATCH 1 AND 2 N LA SALLE 1 AND 2 MILLSTONE 1 R. Haroldsen Published March 1986 EG&G I'daho,'Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract NO. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002 f A QGO59.8M m

7 l

ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals from ,

selected operating and applicant Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) 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 Grand Gulf 1 50 416 52842 Grand Gulf 2 50 417 --

Hatch 1 50 321 52844 Hatch 2 50 366 52845 LaSalle 1 50 373 52850 LaSalle 2 50 374 57731 Millstone 1 50 245 52854 Y

e

\

l l

4

\

1 FORWARD 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, Office, of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of PWR Licensing-A, by EG&G Idaho, Inc.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission funded this work under the authorization B&R 10-19-11-3, FIN Nos. D6001 and D6002.

k s

e e

l s

l

CONTENTS ABSTRACT .........................................................'...... -

11 m

FOREWARD ......................................................... .... iii

. 1. INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

......................................... 1

2. PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATIONS ....................................... 3 2.1 Grand Gulf 1 and 2 ......................................... 3 2.2 Conclusion ................................................. 3 2.3 Hatch 1 and 2 .............................................. 4 2.4 Conclusion ................................................. 4 ,

2.5 La Salle 1 and 2 ........................................... 6 2.6 Conclusion .....................................:........... 6 2.7 Millstone 1 ................................................ 7

~

l 2.8 Conclusion .....,........................................... 7

. 3. GENERIC REFERENCES ............................................... 8 1

9 6

iv s

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

SELECTED GENERAL ELECTRIC BOILING WATER REACTOR PLANTS , ' -

1. 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 irsitiation 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 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 1 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 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 selected group of Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) for Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28.

The results of the review of four individual plant responses are combined and reported on in this document to enhance review efficiency.

s 1

The. specific plants reviewed in this report were selected based on the ,

convenience of review. The actual documents which were reviewed for each evaluation are listed at the end of each plant evaluation. The geqeric -

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 reactor trip system coraponents 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.

e e

s 4

' \

2 r

l

~

, . 2. PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATION 2.1 Grand Gulf 1. 50-416. TAC No. 52842. Grand Gulf 2.50-41L (0L)-

The licensee / applicant for Grand Gulf 1 and 2 (Mississippi Power and Light Co.) responded to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) with

submittals dated November f.1983 and August 26, 1985. In the first submittal the licensee / applicant stated intentions to review the equipment list to ensure the safety related components in various systems which contribute to reactor trip are properly classified. Also, the procedures controlling safety related activities related to components which

, contribute to the reactor trip function were to be reviewed to verify ,

proper safety-related identification.

The licensee / applicant confirmed in the August 26, 1985' submittal that

~

! the component required to function for reactor trip are identified as

. safety-related on documents., procedures and information handling systems i

used in the plant to control safety-related activities, including maintenance, work orders and parts replacement.

l

! 2.2 Conclusion i

Based on the review of the licensee's submittals, we find that the i licensee's responses confirm that the components required to trip the reactor have been identified as safety-related and are appropriately i designated on all relevant plant documents. These responses, therefore, meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part,1) of Generic Letter 83-28 and are acceptable. -

References ,

i

. 1. Letter, J. P. McGaughy, Jr., Mississippi Power and Light Co., to D. G. Eisenhut. NRC, Novemoer 4, 1983.

2. Letter, L. F. Dale, Mississippi Power and Light Co., to H. R. Denton, NRC, August 26, 1985.

s 3

i 2.3 Hatch. Units 1 and 2. 50-321/322. TAC Nos. 52844/52845

~

l The licensee for Hatch 1 and 2 (Georgia Power Co.) provided re.sponses to Item 2.1 (Part 1) in 3 submittals dated November 7, 1983, February 29, 1984 and June 3, 1985. The first submittal stated that the necessary review of reactor trip system components had not been initiated but that the existing classification of trip system components was expected

to be found in conformance. A supplemental response was to be submitted

, prior to February 29, 1984.

l The submittal dated February 29, 1984 described some problems

, encountered in completing the review. The Hatch 1 and 2 plants, like most ,

! General Electric BWR plants, does not have a defined reactor trip system.

The licensee stated their intention to respond to Item 2.1 (Part 1) on a system level basis by reviewing all systems that perform the' reactor trip

~

function. The review was scheduled to be completed by January 1, 1986.

The submittal dated Jun) 3,1985 confirmed that the review of the .

reactor protection system (RPS) and other systems which input signals to the RPS to trip the reactor had been completed. All equipment needed to j trip the reactor with the possible exception of the source range neutron monitors (SRMs) were verified to be properly identified as "Q" on plant documentation. The SRMs were to be given further review regarding safety classification and licensing basis.

l _ The licensee noted that all safety related components are considered

j. "Q" but the "Q" designation is not restr,1cted to safety related

! components. The "Q" designation is'used on plant documentation for procurement, maintenance, and other plant activities to identify quality requirements. ,

2.4 Conclusion i

i Based on the review of the licensee's submittals, we find that the licensee's responses confirm that the components required to trip the i

i A

4

reactor have been designated as safety-related and are designated in all 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, L. T. Gucwa, Georgia Power Co., to J. F. Stolz, NRC, November 7, 1983.

2. Letter, L. T. Gucwa, Georgia Power Co., to J. F. Stolz, NRC, February 29, 1984. ,

3. Letter, L. T. Gucwa, Georgia Power Co., to J. F. Stolz NRC, June 3, 1985.

G b

k 5 .

2.5 La Salle Units 1 and 2. 50-373/50-374. TAC Nos. 52850/57731 ,

3 ThelicenseeforLaSalleUnits1and2(CommonwealthEdison[Co.-) -

I -

responded to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) with submittals' dated November 5, 1983, and June 1, 1984. The licensee emphasized that the components whose functioning is required to trip the reactor do not include all reactor trip components (e.g., some turbine trip components). However.

l the licensee confirmed that those components which must function to trip the reactor, as classified in the licensing-basis documentation, were

classified as safety-related. The licensee also confirmed that the safety-related components are identified on applicable documents,

, procedures, and information handling systems.

4 2.6 Conclusion

~

j Based on the review of the licensee's submittals, we find that the l . licensee's responses state that a system has been implemented to verify i thatthosecomponentsthat5renecessarytoperformreactortripare f t - e ated v nt p1 n do u n n Th e e therefore, meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic i

Letter 83-28, and are acceptable.

l l References

1. Letter, P. L. Barnes, Commonwealth Edison Co., to H. R. Denton, NRC, November 5, 1983. ,

2. Letter, P. L. Barnes, Commonwealth Edison Co., to H. R. Denton, NRC, June 1, 1984.

\

\

6

2.7 Millstone Unit 1 50-245. TAC No. 52854 ThelicenseeforM111estoneUnit1(NortheastNuclearEnergygo.') -

~~

responded to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) in submittals dated November 8, 1983 and May 9, 1985. The submittals 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) and that safety-related activities on these components including maintenance, work orders and parts replacement will be completed using Category 1 controls.

2.8 Conclusion .

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

licensee's responses confirm that the components necessary to perform

^

reactor trip are classified safety related and that all activities relating to these components are designated as safety related. These respones, therefore, meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28, and are acceptable.

References

1. Letter, W. G. Counsil, Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., to

D. G. Eisehnut, NRC, November 8, 1983.

l 2. Letter, J. F. Opeka, Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., to J. A. Zno11nski, NRC, May 9, 1985. ,

f 4

s 7

3. GENERIC REFERENCES

1. Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Powe'r Plarit, 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, i " Required Actions 8ased on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28) " July 8, 1983.

4 i

9 9

6 l

e l

1 -

l l

8 I

i

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