ML20237H706
| ML20237H706 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1987 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237H676 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8708250119 | |
| Download: ML20237H706 (3) | |
Text
-
i SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.1 (Part 1)
EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMP 0NENTS) 1 QUAD CITIES STATION, UNITS 1&2 1
DOCKET NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265 l
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
On February 25, 1983, both scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an atitomatic reactor trip signal from the reactor protection system. The incident was terminated manually by the
']
operator about 30 seconds after initiation of the automatic trip signal.
Failure of the circuit breakers was determined to be related to sticking j
l of the undervoltage trip attachment. Prior to this incident, on February 22, I
1983, at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, an automatic trip signal was
{
1 generated based on steam generator low-low level during plant start-up.
In j
this case, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator almost conin-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 generic implications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant.
Results of the staff's inquiry into generic implications of the Salem incidents are reported in NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant." As a result of this investigation, 9708250119 870819 PDR ADDCK 05000254 P
PDR E-
i 1
the Commission (NRC) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8, 1983 )
all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and i
holders of construction pemits to respond to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events.
The following is an evaluation of the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO, the licenssee) response submitted for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, regarding Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28. Actual documents reviewed during this evaluation are listed as references at the end.
Item 2.1 (Part 1) requires the licensee to confirm all Reactor Trip System components are identified, classified.and treated as safety-related in i
accordance with 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."
EVALVATION The licensee for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 responded to the requirements of 2
3 Item 2.1 (Part 1) with submittals dated November 5, 1983 and July 26, 1985,
CECO has confirmed in said submittals that all components required to perform
. I J
a reactor trip function have been reviewed to verify these components are classified as safety-related equipment.
Furthermore, CECO stated that these components were identified as " safety-related" in all applicable i
i documents, procedures, and information handling systems.
I CONCLUSION Based upon an evaluetion described above, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee's statements confirm a program exists for identifying, classifying and treating components required for performance of the reactor trip function as safety-related.
Furthermore, this program meets the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of the Generic Letter 83-28 and is therefore acceptable.
Principal Contributor: D. Lasher 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, P. L. Barnes, Commonwealth Edison Company, to H. R. Denton, NRC, November 5, 1983.
3.
Letter, G. L. Alexander, Commonwealth Edison Company, to H. R. Denton, NRC, July 26, 1985.
4.
Revised Draft, EGG-NTA-7190, Prepared for U.S.NRC by EG&G Idaho Inc.,
Published September 1986
EGG-NTA-7190 Revised Draft l
~
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.1 (PART 1) EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMPONENTS)
SELECTED GENERAL ELECTRIC BOILI(G WATER REACTOR PLANTS l
LIMERICK 1 f'$ 2 QUAD CITIES 1 AND 2
-00SOUE" ANNA 1 ANO 2 u%r-2 R. HAROLDSEN Published September 1986 EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN Nos. D6001 and 06002 r A
1 i
i, i
i l
j l
ABSTRACT I
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 i
plants are included in this review.
l l
l plant Name Docket Number TAC Number Liaerisk 1 50 '352-5fiMHE Li= rick 2 50 053
-et -
t Quad Cities 1 50 254 52872 i
Quad Cities 2 50 265 52873 Se:q :h:nne 1 50 287
-?20o5 S;;;;:h nn 2 --
50 299 69444-
"NP-2 50 207-E7005 s
e e
i FOREWORD l
I 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 1
conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of PWR Licensing-A, by the EG&G Idaho, Inc.
The U.S. Nuc' lear Regulatory Comission funded this work under the authorization B&R 20-19-10-11,-3 and 20-19-40-41-3, FIN Nos. 06001 and D6002.
s 1
e e
\\
CONTENTS ABSTRACT..............................................................
ii FOREWORD..............................................................
iii 1.
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
1 2.
PLANTRESPONSEEVALUATIONS.'I.....................................
......,o e
- o..,
e.o_s,.
3 2.3 Quad Cities 1 and 2........................................
5 2.4 Conclusion.................................................
5-l
,e c.......u.,.....
..a
+
+
,___,.....+.................................................
+
.+
...m.
.P.-_.._,..an. 4..n n.
+
,O 3.
GENERIC REFERENCES...............................................
8 l
I i
1 l
l i
1 1
1 1
4 A en. ag /,ia (,/e plan f e va laa l> *cn s t
ha ve been c/e leled fr om de enclosed se /e e le d' fe r /i c n s o/ /4rx ref r /.
iv 4
i l
l
.j 1
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 d
to be related to the sticking of the undervoltaga trip attachment.
Prior f
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.
J automatic trip.
Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director for 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 res.ults of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem Unit 1 incidents are reported in NUREG-1000,
" Generic Imp 1tcations of the ATWS Events at'the Salem Nuclear Power Plant."
As a result of this investigation, the Commission (NRC)
I requested (by Generic Letter 83-28, dated July 8, 1983) all licensees of operating react' ors, 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 *groupofBoilingWaterReactors(BWRs)for} Item 2.1(Part1)of Generic Letter 83-28.
i The results of the review of four individual plant responses are combined and reported on in this document to enhance review efficiency.
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' generic documents referenced in this report are listed at the end of the report.
1
~
=
i i
I f
Part 1 of Item 2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requires the licensee or I
applicant to confirm that all reactor trip system components are i
identified, classified, and treated as safety-related as indicated in the following statement:
l Licensees and applicants shall' confirm that all components whose functioning is required to trip the reactor are identified as safqty-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 I
1 I
l l
e e
e 2
1
y j
2.3 Ouad Citites Units l'and 2-50-254 and 50-265.
j TAC Nos. 52872 and 52873 j
i i
1 The licensee for the Quad Cities Units 2 and 3 (Commonwealth
~
Edison Co.) responded to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) with
~
submittals dated November 5, 1983, and July 26, 1985. The licensee 3
emphasised 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, the licensee confirmed that those components which must function to trip the reactor are classified in the licensing-basis documentation as safety-related.
The. licensee also confirmed that the safety-related components are identified in applicable documents, procedures, and information handling systems.
]
2.4 Conclusion Based on the review of t,he licensee's submittals, we find that the licensee's responses state that a system has been implemented to verify j
that those components that are necessary to perform a reactor trip are classified as safety-related and that such' components are verified.as safety-related in all relevant plant-documentation.
These responses, therefore, meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic i
Letter 83-28 and are acceptable.
1 REFERENCES 1.
Let,.ter, P. L. Barnes, Commonwealth Edison Co., to H. R. Denton, NRC, November 5, 1983.
2.
Letter, G. L. Alexander, Commonwealth Edison Co., to H. R. Denton, NRC, Cru ly 26, 1985.
5
l 1
t 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 f or Operating License, and Holders of Construction Permits, j
" Required Actions Based on Generjc Implications of Salem ATWS. Events j
(Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.
l 1
\\
I l
a 1
8 l
l