ML20214J683

Safety Evaluation Accepting Util Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.1 (Part 1).Existence of Program to Identify, Classify & Treat Reactor Trip Sys Components as safety-related Confirmed

ML20214J683
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	11/19/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20214J608	List: ML20214J605 ML20214J655 ML20214J683 ML20214J712 ML20214J716
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8612010392
Download: ML20214J683 (3)

Text

. .

3 SAFETY EVAtkJATION REPORT GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.1 (PART 1)

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMPONENTS)

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-423 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 teminated manually by the aperator 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 daring 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 (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 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 Commission (NPC) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8,19831 )

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

8612010392 861119 PDR ADOCK 05000423 P PDR

1

~5 This report is an evaluation of the response submitted by the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, the licensee for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3, 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 this 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:

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

EVALUATION The licensee for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 responded to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) with submittals dated November 8, 19832 ,

3 4 May 9,1985 , and September 5,1985 . The submittals stated 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 (MEPL1 and that safety-related activities on these components including maintenance, work orders and parts replacenent will be completed using Category I controls.

I l

d l i

CONCLUSION I

l 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, W. G. Counsil, Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 8, 1983.

3. Letter, J. F. Opeka, Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, May 9, 1985.

4. Letter, J. F. Opcka, Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., to B. J. Youngblood, NRC, September 5, 1985.

1 4

EGG-NTA-7226 CONFORNANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.1 (FART 1) EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMPONENTS) .c GINNA HADDAM NECK MILLSTONE 3 HARRIS 1 R. Haroidsen Published July 1986 EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. 0.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002 T f, f $.1 b'N Ub

I d

ABSTRACT 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 Ginna 50 244 52841 Haddam Neck 50 213 52843  !

Millstone 3 50 423 OL Harris 1 50 400 OL 1

. l I

li

1 4

FOREWORD er 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 Commission, Office of Nuclear ,

Reactor Regulation, Division of PWR Licensing-A, by the EG&G Idaho, Inc.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the authorization B&R 10-19-19-11-3 and 20-19-40-41-3, FIN Nos. 06001 and D6002.

111

1 M

CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................. 11 FOREWORD .............................................................. iii

1. INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

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

2. PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATIONS"....................................... 3 2.1 Ginna ...................................................... 3 2.2 Conclusion ................................................. 3 2.3 Haddam Neck and Millstone 3 ................................ 5 2.4 Conclusion ................................................. 5 2.5 Harris Unit 1 .............................................. 6.,r 2.6 Conclusion ................................................. 6

3. GENERIC REFERENCES ............................................... 7 e

iv

- - c , - - - - - - . , - - - . , - - , ----m , - - . ,

1 4

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 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 Sales 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.

- ac 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 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 I

operating reactors, appl.icants 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 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 design and convenience of review. The actual documents which were reviewed 1

, , - - - - - - -.,-.,g, . - - - - - , - - . - , ,--e--- , - - - , - - - ,- - . - . , ,-n- , , - - . ---

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 reactor trip system components are e 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.

l l .

2 I

i 1

1 1 1 4

2. PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATIONS 2.1 R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. 50-244. TAC No. 52841 The licensee for the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Rochester Gal and Electric Corp) provided a response to Item 2.1 (Part 1) in a submittal dated November 4,1983. The submittal states that the reactor trip system components were confirmed to be classified as safety-related. The controlling document for safety-related activities and the identification

. of safety-related structures, systems and components is through Appendix A of the Quality Assurance Manual. This document contains guidance concerning the designation of safety-related equipment. Administrative procedures were identified that are used to control safety-related activities.

The licensee has plans for an expanded computerized system for listing safety-related items and controlling the activities associated with the safety-related items. This system was to be completed by the end of 1984. ,

However, a submittal from the licensee dated August 23, 1985 stated that the Computerized Maintenance Management System database and associated administrative procedures had not been completed. A new plan of action was to be developed by December 31, 1985. Information received by telephone on May 7, 1986 indicated that the Computerized Maintenance Management system had not been completed but is expected to be completed by the end of 1986.

2.2 Conclusion Based on our review of the licensee's responses, we find that the licensee's description of the presently existing program for identifying, classifying and treating reactor trip system components as safety-related meet the requirement of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of the Generic Letter 83-28, and are therefore acceptable. The licensee's planned p'rogram for the Computerized Maintenance Management System is relevant to the wider scope of Item 2.2.1 which deals with the all safety-related components of the entire plant. The new system and its status will be considered in the

forthcoming review of Item 2.2.1, 3

F .F i

5 References

1. Letter, J. E. Mater, Rochester Gas and Electric Corp, to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC, November 4, 1983.

2. Letter, R. W. Kober, Rochester Gas and Electric Corp., to

. D. M. Crutchfield, NRC, August 23, 1985. .

j 4

i

. - - - - -r- , - - - , . ,. -- r,-- - ,.- , ,--- - - - - - - , , ,.- -- -- - -- - - - - -

3 4

2.3 Haddam Neck. 50-213. TAC No. 52843. Millstone 3. 50-423 (OL)

The licensee / applicant for Haddam Neck and Millstone Unit 3 (Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.) responded to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) in

, submittals dated November 8, 1983, May 9, 1985 and September 5, P985. The submittals state that all components whose function is required to trip the

. reactor are identified as Categ'ory 1 (safety related) on their Material, j 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.

2.4 Conclusion I

Based on the review of the licensee's/ applicant's submittals, we find that the licensee's/ applicant's responses confirm that the components necessary to perform reactor trip are classified as safety related and that all activities relating to these components are designated as safety related. These responses, 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.

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

3. Letter, J. F. Opeka, Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., to

8. J. Youngblood, NRC, September 5, 1985.

I 5

1 4

2.5 Shearon Harris Unit 1. 50 400 (OL)

The applicant for She&ron Harris Unit 1 (Carolina Power and Light Co.)

responded to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) in submittals dated November 7, 1983 and May 31, 1985. The applicant stated in the birst submittal that a Q-list identifying safety-related components was being developed along with implement 1'ng plant procedures. In addition plant procedures were being developed to ensure that components whose function is required to trip the reactor are identified as safety-related on relevant documents to , control safety-related Activities. The May 31, 1985 provided confirmation that the Q-list had been completed and the administrative controls implemented.

2.6 Conclusion *F' Based on the review of the licensee's submittals, we find that the applicant has verified that the components that are necessary to perform reactor trip are classified as safety-related and that activities relating ,

to the safety-related components are controlled by procedures which reflect the special requirements for handling safety-related components. We, therefore find that the applicant's responses meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) and are acceptable.

References

1. Letter, A. B. Cutter, Carolina Power and Light Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November

2. Letter, S. R. Zimmerman, Carolina Power and Light Co., to H. R. Denton, NRC, May 31, 1985.

6 i

, i I

~

3. GENERIC REFERENCES

1. Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, NUREG-1000, Volume 1. April 1983; Volume 2. July 1383.

2. NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, 1

. Applicants for Operating L'icense, and Holders of Construction Permits, l

" Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.

M 4

7

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