ML20214Q637
| ML20214Q637 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Salem |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1986 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213E339 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-152 GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8706050099 | |
| Download: ML20214Q637 (5) | |
Text
-_
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT l
GENERIC LtITER 83-28, ITEM 2.1 (PART 1) l~
EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMPONENTSI SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1&2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272/311 INTRODUCTION AND SUPNARY On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the Salem f
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 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 Salen 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, 1
the Comission (NRC) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated.1uly 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.
^
g60 9 870529 SI,E, CAL 87-152 PDR l
+
7-This report is an evaluation of the response submitted by Public Service Electric and Gas Company, the licensee for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1&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.
t Item 2.1 (Part 1) requires the licensee to confinn that all Reactor Trip System components are identified, classified and treated as safety-related as indicated in the following statement:
F Licensees and applicants shall confirm that all components whose i
functioning is required to trip the reactor are identified as i
safety-related on documents, procedures, and information handling systems used in the plant to control safety-related activities, in-cluding maintenance, work orders, and parts replacement.
t EVALUATION The licensee for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units IA2 responded to 2
3 the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) with submittals dated March 8, March 14,
5 6
April 7, April 8 and May 31, 1983. The March 8. March 14 and April 7 sub-3 mittals described the licensee's program for upgrading the equipment classifica-tion system at Salem 1.
The program included the development of a Q-list which identified activities, services, structures, components and systees to which i
9 =
-a-*+-7-t-v
-- m er-e-y w w w-=, em%,
ww -c,er,.w cw r--
-m--.+--w=~-w.,-me-e-.-w--e-ee-~--
,+w-e-,m.,--i-w-
-+-g+-ees-w-w
O
?..
safety-related classification applied for work orders and station procurement documents. These earlier submittals referred only to the Salem 1 plant. The later submittals dated April 8 and May 31, 1983, confirmed that the program for Salem 2 had also been similarly upgraded..
CONCLUSION Based on our review of these responses, we find the licensee's statements con-firm 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.
DEFERENCES 1.
NEC Letter, D. G. Eissnhut 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, R. A. Uderitz, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., to R. A. Starostecki, NRC, March 8,1983.
3.
Letter, R. A. Uderitz, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, March 14, 1983.
i
REFERENCES (CONT.)
4 Letter, R. A. Uderitz, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, April 7,1983.
5.
Letter, R. A. Uderitz, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, April 8, 1983.
6.
Letter, R. A. Uderitz, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, May 31, 1983.
e i
.e.
. ~....
~. -. -.,
- - - ~
ENCt.UM!Kt._
ICSB SALP IHPUT Station Units 1&2 PLANT:
Salem Nuclear Generatinf tem 2.1 (Part 1)
SUBJECT:
Review of G.L. 83-28, PERF0lWNCE RASIS EVALUATION CATEGORY CRITERIA N/A No basis for assessment.
Management Involvment The upgrading program was expeditiously pursued and satisfactorily 1
Approach to resolved.
Ressluttom of..
Technical Issues The licensee confir1ned that a program was implemented and that the results 1
of that program met the requirements of the generic letter.
- i. Responsiveness
~
N/A No basis for assessment.
8.
Enforcement History
~
~
No basis for assessment.
N/A 5.
Reportable Events N/A No basis for assessment.
6.
Staffing N/A No basis for assessment.
- 7. Trat: ' ig
.