ML20215K459
| ML20215K459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford, 05000000, Washington Public Power Supply System, Satsop |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1986 |
| From: | Haroldsen R EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214T794 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001, CON-FIN-D-6002 EGG-NTA-7319, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8610280180 | |
| Download: ML20215K459 (23) | |
Text
~
EGG-NTA-7319 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.1 (PART 1) EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMPONENTS)
WATERFORD UNIT 3 WNP UNITS 1 AND 3 R. Haroidsen Published September 1986 EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under 00E Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002 3N SM)[
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 Waterford 3 50-382 57699 WNP-1 50-460 OL WNP-3 50-508 OL 1
l i
1 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 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 20-19-10-11-3 and 20-19-40-41-3, FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002.
-i 4
I CONTENTS 1
4 ABSTRACT..............................................................
11 J
l FOREWORD..............................................................
i ii f
- 1.
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
1 2.
PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATIONS.......................................
3 i
2.1 Waterford 3................................................
3 i
2.2 Conclusion.................................................
3 1
2.3 WNP 1 and 3................................................
4 2.4 Conclusion..............................................'...
5 I
j 3.
GENERIC REFERENCES...............................................
6 4
5 i
a s
4 I
1 J.
l 4
1 r
i f
1 i
i l'
j
(
i t
i i
k 5
J iV r
.y
__-+-..s,9e--m,-..-p-..,..,---__
,,wp.,,,_,
.g yy..
,,,s
_.,y gy,_
9 m
,,,,,,,-.,, wwy p_
,_.%4,_,,
,,,_,,,_---y,
,,a----,.m._
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 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.
Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director of Operations (E00), 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 group of 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 convenience of review.
The actual documents which were reviewed 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, i
i 1
Part 1 of Item 2.1 of Gener.1c 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 J
t I
i 2
2.
PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATIONS 2.1 Waterford 3. 50-382. TAC No. 57699 Louisiana Power and Light Co. the licensee for the Waterford Unit 3 nuclear plant, provided responses to Item 2.1 (Part 1) in submittals dated November 4, 1983, May ll, 1984 and November 15, 1985.
The first submittal states that at that time the applicant w4s engaged in a documentation review to confirm that the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) were met.
The second submittal described an interim program to address the concerns of Item 2.1.
The licensee had identified as safety-related the applicable procedures, documents and data carried by information handling systems that deal with reactor trip system components.
The November 15, 1985 submittal did not specifically address Item 2.1 (Part 1) but provided the necessary information for this item as part of a response to Item 2.2.1.
The submittal states that the licensee has developed a retined listing of safety-related components through the iniplementation of a Master Equipment List / Quality List (MEL/Q-List).
The 0-List is a subset of the MEL consisting of all the safety-related components in the plant. Components that have been designated safety-related are designated "Q-List" and are so designated on all relevant plant documents including those used for the procurement of replacement parts.
2.2 Conclusion Based on the review of the licensee's submittals, we find that the licensee has verified that the components necessary to perform reactor trip are classified as safety-related and that a classification program has been implemented which imposes safety-related procedures on work orders, maintenance, and procurement activities.
We, therefore, find that the licensee's response meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 and are acceptable.
l t
l 3
E References 1.
Letter, K. W. Cook, Loutstanna Power and Light Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC.'h6vember 4,1983.
2.
Letter, K. W. Cook, Loutstana Power and Light Co.,'to G. W. Knighton, NRC, May 11, 1984 3.
Letter, K. W. Cook, toutstana Power and Light Co., to G. W. Knighton, NRC, November 15, 1985.
2.3 WNP Units 1 and 3. 50 460/508. (OL Plants)
Washington Public Power Supply System, the applicant for WNP Units 1 and 3, provided a limited response to Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 for Unit 1 in a submittal dated March 30, 1984.
The su'bmittal states that a complete response to this item will be provided 2 years prior to fuel load. The earliest possible fuel load date given for planning purposes is June 1989.
The applicant also provided a submittal for the WNP-3 plant dated July 17, 1985. This submittal was a request for an amendment to the construction permit which will dqlay construction of'the WNP-3 plant for an indefinite period.
2.4 Conclusion It is evident that the concerns of Ittm 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 will be resolved on an industry wide basis prior to completion of construction and licensing of either the WNP-1 or WNP-3 plants and these concerns will be resolved for these plants durtog the review and approval process of their Safety Analysts Report and technical specifications.
'Therefore, the staff considers these items to be closed for this evaluation.
References 1.
Letter, G. C. Sorensen, Washington Public Power Supply System, to E. G. Adensam, NRC, March 30, 1984.
4 1
se 2.
Letter G. C. Sorsensen, Washington Public Power Supply System, to H. R. Denton, NRC, July 17, 1985.
9 8
e 5
~
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 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.
N 6