ML20245A448
| ML20245A448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Perry, Hope Creek, Pilgrim, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1986 |
| From: | Haroldsen R EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235V135 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001, CON-FIN-D-6002, FOIA-87-644 EGG-NTA-7188-01, EGG-NTA-7188-1, OL, TAC-52865, TAC-52866, TAC-52867, TAC-61705, NUDOCS 8704020038 | |
| Download: ML20245A448 (15) | |
Text
-
3p) -
f.,
i e
i
- ,%X*
g.,...
EGG-NTA-7'188 1
n v~- >
u u y.
Revised Draft fg September 1086
- r.ga.a a.,. r;,
g N
INFORMAL REPORT.
< g;s.
4 Es:
><&'s t
I 4
i I
0,j.
3.Y l
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 1
3
'5; ITEM 2.1-(PART 1) EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION-Q pi$[##
98,,
HOPE CREEX PEACH BOTTOM 2 AND' 3 PERRY 'l 1
g.r.260sb,orato.
AND 2 PILGRIM 1.
i y,@wi.p...
1
-sw J%
$::'."14.Q Manag p
7 gp$pN,)lhM.$
l R. Har01dsen
.Y D
' W;:$e:{:'epartalen v
i Op..., <of Erie " h p
1
.c4
. o; f fbh
'h^#'h r ** }*.IN, d I
{
1;,. 3c ;.V
,paI h.
.M. ; g,;..) bl i M' -
l
.z.: x...ev y*
3.: s ^ '.p,jj 50f*.'r.hG; -
c
.f
.,l 3. ['.Ae f;*
6 0 2.-N s'r;.?;.1 ~ ;.' $f 57l i
T I
6 sky >
.,v: - Q,.
1 W % b.
1 PREUM! NARY j
sp~.m.. v,c.;9..if as. -
v.
%:Ar. 3,e.g gM_. :,.3....
g 9.3,Ss
'a 4
k sk
.s.
..+ r.g"+ thizj, g,.
U ~. a
..h...
.a.
p%..
r
. 4 9 ;C i *) M E".; 4 5ys'd N..;4.w:..
. e q p #,
Midb. -
8 g' i i ' MQ.d$q'j$l.be'dlg g5 ' 6%?$p.?.".f isp
$EssS4Yj$}pJ'5
.,5G q:q.
Prepared for the ss
..u,,1-- : gw.n$n.eFNEOS M""U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pst
- y
. wawwwMg.
. p4 DOE Coneoct.%'phg%
%;.w.
\\.,.
wpE.gC07 76/00ar#
lb
. gW[$_,. '
, :- bl,4. n'sf/. % *!. ? *
(,1.k. : *.
N151.% 44;fd,l, l-
' *)i.bb%AD
'h 3p,,
,;g.&G L.. w::' n &r" ' '.'gT I
Wdb 7 8704020038 860925 u
M6.., -
ep
/ DOCK 0500@77
/wJt{civ EW
- e,7,k)f.'O "4.f.', % Y [
N5N'__
- 3
'.2 J;: '..
l%
, y;9
?.I eg:
. wc. -
A +-..
.'). '.
.e"g
-45
,tw -.
.; 7 -
.y.
,...Q
. 'e
.L S$
w
., e,,
This document was prepared primarily.for preliminary or internal use.
It has not,
r a
received full review and approval.
Since T
I there may'be substantive changes,.this document should not.be considered final..
- W
- ,i+
l l
l l
e l
).. p.
1
%.4 E GG-nTA--7188,.
, ? '-
Revised Draft.
'(
~' )
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28.
ITFM 2.1 (PART 1) EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (RTS COMPONENTS):
SELECTED GENERAL ELECTRIC BOILING WATER REACTOR PLANTS HOPE' CREEK
>:q PEACH BOTTOM 2 AND 3.
'?
PERRY 1 AND 2L
'k PILGRIM 1
')
.9 3
.\\
R. HAROLDSEN
+
Published September 1986 i
EG&G Idaho, Inc.
. Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
~
Washington,.D. C. 20555 Under 00E Contract No.-0E-AC07-761001570 FIN Nos. D6001 and 06002
\\
/
l__________
.__1_______________________
,M]
ABSTRACT
' "w.
i
@ j
/i
{
l _-
This.EG&G. Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of'the submittals from-
-(
j selected operating and applicant Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) plants for conf ormance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.1 (Part 1). The following
$r plants are included in this review.
.k
.M I
Plant Name Docket Number TAC Number 5
Hope Creek 50-354 OL' Peach Bnttom 2 50-277'
-5286 ~5
..c4 i
Peach Bottom 3 50-278' 52866'
}7 W
i Perry 1 50-440 4 1705 Perry 2 50-441 OL 2*
'y l
Pilgrim 1 50-293
--62661 -
j FOREWORD f:
This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating j}
licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions T*
i i
l Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This work is being.
conducted for the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office'of Nuclear Regulation, Divis ton of PWR Licensing-A, by the EG&G Idaho, ~ Inc.,
,y a
y Ut 4
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the-
'i' authorization B&R 20-19-10-11-3 and 20-19-40-41-3,: FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002.
x.
(1; 1
ii
l 1
.t I
>1 I
2 4 v(
q i
. N" '
j l
m CONTENTS 9
4 ko ABSTRACT...............................................................
ii 1
FOREWORD..............................................................
11 D
l u
1.
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
1
@l e.o.
4 2.
PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATIONS.......................................
3
' A l-y' 2.1 Hope Creek.................................................
3 3.r 1
,Y 2.2 Conclusion...................................'..............
3 Q;
e*
2.3 P e a c h B o t t om 2 a n d 3.......................................
5
-)
u.
S 2.4 Conclusion.................................................
5 i
.v 2.5 Perry 1 and 2..............................................
6.
2.6 Conclusion.................................................
6 I
7 s.
1 2.7 Piigrim 1..................................................
7
.7'
-i I
2.6 Conclusion.................................................
7 i
I 3.
GENERIC REFERENCES...............................................
8 I
e v.-
ie e
1 q'
l
(
i
)
I t
I r
L
[
J 9:5',
.5 1.
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
.I lc On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of g
the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip p
signal from the reactor protection system.
This incident was terminated l/
,4 manually by the operator about 30 seconds af ter the initiation of the r,
i
- e f
i autom.atic trip signal.
The failure of the circuit breakers was determined j
to be related to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment. Prior f,
to tr.is incident, on February 22, 1983, an automatic trip signal.was 3'
generated at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant based on steam r
generator low-low level during plant startup.
In this case, the reactor
['
was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the I
J autom.atic trip.
.I Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive l
Director f or Operations (E00), directed the staf f to investigate and report i
on the generic implications of the occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem f
Nuclear Power Plant. The results of the staff's inquiry into the generic
.I implications of the Salem Unit 1 incidents are reported in NUREG-1000,
)
" Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Fower 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, appitcants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respont to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events.
l This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted from a selec.ed group of doiling Water Reactors (BWRs) for Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Gener ic Let ter 83-28.
The results of the review of four individual plant responses are comoined and reported on in this document to enhance review ef ficiency.
The specific plants reviewed in this report were selected based on the 1
'1 b
convenience of review.
The actual documents which were reviewed for each.
1}l i
evaluation are listed at the end of each. plant evaluation.. The generic l
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 a e j.
identified, classified, and treated as-safety-related..'as indicated ~)n the' "f
following statement:
.}
k Licensees and applicants shall confirm that all components.whose 6
functioning is required to. trip the reactor are identified as saf ety-related 'on documents, procedures. end inf ormation. handling a
systems used in the plant to contro1' safety-related activities, 4
including maintenance.. work orders,-and parts replacement'.
d,.
k 4
].
.h
.I J
ff14 hw Y
t 2
(f QR 2.
PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATIONS k
]:q 2.1 Hope creel 50-354 (OL)
Yq The applicant for Hope Creek (Public Service Electric and Gas
- h l
- mpany) provided responses to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of
,].
Generic i.etter 83-28 in submittals dated March 30, 1984 December 17, 1984 jl.
and May 21, 1985.
In the first submittal the applicant described their plan to develop a Master Equipment List (MEL) which would identify the caponents required to initiate reactor trip and designate these components as safety-related.
The MEL imposes quality assurance requirements for the
" ~
safety-related components and is the controlling document for C'i safety-related activities. The applicant stated intentions to be in 5
c:mpliance with Item 2.1 (Part 1) prior to September 1984.
d p
', )
The second submittal reviewed prog.ess to December 17, 1984 and satiined a revised program which would meet the requirements of Item 2.1 s
(Part 1) prior to March 1985. The applicant confirmed in their May 21 1985 submittal that review of the reactor trip system had been completed and that reactor trip system components were verified to be classified s2'ety-related on appropriate design documents, however, the MEL had not
.:een completed for all components of the reactor trip system. The a
applicant stated that this effort would be completed by September 30. 1985.
Iu Ij#
2.2 Conclusion k
y Based on a review of the applicant's submittals, we find that the applicant's responses confirm that components required to trip the reactor f
rme been designated safety-related and that the MEL is used to control all activities relating to safety-related components. We, therefore, find that tr.e applicant's responses meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of G#eeric Letter 83-28, and are acceptable.
)
i i
3
4 s
I l
REFERENCES l
1.
Letter, R.L. Mitt 1, Public Service Electric and Gas Co... to A.
Schwencer, NRC, March 30, 1984.
w j
2.
Letter, R.L. Hitti, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., to A.
]
Schwencer, NRC, December 17,19F4.
l 3.
Letter, R.L. Mitt 1, Pubile Service Electric and Gas Co., to W. Butler, NRC, May 21, 1985.
n.
4 i
'5
?+
7 4,
w,
+
e 4
4g
- .QW.
l 2.3 Peach Botton 2 50-277 TAC No. 52865 j !
g peach Bottom 3 50-278 TAC NO. 52866 I
w The licensee for Peach Botton 2 and 3 (Philadelphia Electric Co.)
1 provided responses to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic e4 4
Letter 83-28 in submittals dated November 4, 1983, April 23, 1984 and l
May 29, 1985.
i The responses state that all systems that contribute to the reactor trip function have been identified as safety-related in the current 'Q' L
1
.s list and that all components of safety-related systems are safety-related unless specifically excluded by safety evaluation.
The "Q' list is used-to N
identify the applit.able codes, standards and procedures to be used for I-.
activities relating to the safety-related components.
'. i, 3v Each item or service to be procured is reviewed to determine if it is safety-related. The review is performed by a congnizant member of, the plan staf f or the Engineering and Research Department.
f' h
2.4 Conclusion
'3 1
34 Item 2.1 (Part 1) requires licensees to confirm that all components N%
whose functioning is required to trip the reactor are identified as fj safety-related on documents, procedures, and information handling systems ff
)
used in the plant to control safety-related activities, including T
uintenance, work orders, and parts replacement.
Yi Based en the licensee's submittal we find that the list of components required to trip the reactor is incomplete. We also find that'the licensce's program does not identify safety-related components on relevant l
o piant docurrents. The response, therefore, does not meet the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 and is unacceptable.
5
i 1
1 l
REFERENCES 1.
Letter, S.L. Daltrof f', Philadelphia Electric Co.. to;0.G.- Eisenhut,.
NRC, November 4, 1983.
A,z 2.
Letter, S.L. Daltrof f,, Philadelphia Electric Co., to'0.G. Eisenhut, Y)
NRC, Aprl) 23, 1984.
-]
3.
Letter, S.L. Daltrof f, Philadelphia Electric Co., to 1.F. Stolz, ' RC l I N
May 29,-1985.
.$ [
1 b f
' d f,.
MIP;
\\
2 l
3 g
D si l
- s
\\
4
- s 4
1 l
I 6
L___________.______
l
,5
)
{
l 4
l 2.5 Perry 1 50-440 (OL) and Perry 2 50-441 (0L)
I i
j The applicant for Perry 1 and 2 (Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.)
{
provided responses to the requirements of Item.2.1-(Part 1) of' Generic 7 '
Letter 83-28 in submlttais dated April 6, 1984 and August 28, 1985. The
'i applicant reported in the fitst submittal that the "Q"-list for the plants ff was undergoing review to verify the correct classification of g
safety-related components.
The "Q'-list is to be used to'determineL 1 {
j classification for maintenance, work orders and procurement activities, i
j l
[
1
.u l
p l
The second submittal. reported that the "Q'-list evaluation had been yi j
completed and that all numbered components from the 5 systems that
.5 l
contribute to the reactor trip function had been reviewed and' classified as N
j j
safety-related or nonsafety-related.. The *Q'-list is'the safety-related subset of the Perry Equipment Master Files System (PENS) used to determine
\\
the classification for work orders, maintenance and parts procurement.
%y.)
..s
_ig 2.6 Conclusion-
'j.
.I
]
Based on the review of the applicant's subalttals, we find that the applicant has verified that the components necessary to perform reactor
,1 l
trip are classified as safety-related and that-this. classification program-imposes safety-related procedures on work orders, maintenance, and
}
procurement activities. We, therefore, find that the applicant's response meet the requirements of Item 2.1- (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 and are Ml acceptable.
h REFERENCES e
1.
Letter, M.R. Edelman, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. to D.G.
Eisenhut, NRr, April 6, 1984.
1; 1
2.
Letter, M.R. Edelman, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., to B..).
Youngblood, August 28, 1985.
1 1
1 7
.l y
i 2.7 pilaris 1. 50-293. TAC No. 52867 The licensee for Pilgrim 1 (Boston Edison Co.) provided responses to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1)-of Generic Letter 83-28 in submittals dated November 7, 1983 and June 28, 1985.
In t'ie.submittals the licensee confirmed that the components required to function for reactor trip are identified in the plant "Q'-list and are controlled at a quality. level which reflects the safety-related functions.
Documents (Purchase Orders, L
Maintenance Requests) used to control activities associated with the "Q" listed equipment are identified as "Q* wenich designates the use of safety-related procedures, f
2.8 Conclusion Based on the review of the licenste's submittals, we find that the 7
licensee has verified that the components necessary to perform reactor trip r,0 are classified as safety-related and that the classification program i
imposes safety-related procedures on maintenance and procurement activities.
relating to the components. We, therefore, find that the licensee's response meet the requirements of Items 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic 4,
Letter 83-28 and are acceptable.
7
+
d REFERENCES
[
1.
Letter, W.D. Harrington, Boston Edison Co., to D.8. Vassallo NRC, November 7, 1983.
2.
Letter, W.D. Harrington, Boston Edison Co., to 0.8. Vassallo, NRC, June 28, 1985.
- q w
.f
?
,3 8
v
.o ll A
F 3.
GENERIC REFERENCES
/
r 1.
Generic Implicat ens of ATWS Events at the Salem kuclear Power Plant, f
NUREG-1000 Volune 1. April 1983; Volume 2. July 1983.
N,h 3e 2.
NRC Letter, 0.G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, y
1 Applicants for 0;erating License, and Holders of Construction Permits.
N
"[hl!
" Required Actions Eased on Generic Implications of Sales ATWS Events l
(Generic Letter E3-28) " July 8, 1983.
g i l
[
- g x
2 l
{
l 4 t
+?
l
- [)
I A
1
.l
' N.
8 s
Wl h
I it 1 i I
V l
lk l
4 j
,3
- f
!0 2
I l
9 L_______-_-_.
- ,g w ' ?j f.
g;'; &.'.,-
.y
']
't 3J v a.w6 a neew6 on, ee.m ies i ve* oat *w.*o e = r.ec 4+
- e... u.
.mo
- '#,*,',;*,' L sinuouMAPHIC OATA SHEET EGG-NTA4388 Revised Br3ft; pp ii..,. cmc.. o.........
,...s....m.,....
. 6..... u...
Conformance to. Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.1' (Part 1).. Equipment Classification' Hope Creek.
1 Peach Bottom 2 and 3, Perry 1 and 2, Pilgrim 1 M
a n'e am' ems'es o r-l_
. s.*
a September-
. r 1936 ;
,....c...
R. Haroldsen e oars as. oar mae ' 1
,,. a
.w w - =.
Septem6em b 1966
,.... c.
- o. u..u.
- e. c,
. %.cm
..%7 EG&G Idaho,.Inc.
.i
.l Idaho Falls, ID 83415 t
D6001andj6002:
j A
e i
do
.. m..
.u.
Division of Systems ~ Integration Draft Technical.'
Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation -
Evaluation" Report
. 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555
-!g e nemoo co easo u
- .?.
-r
.{
lr q
.,.t........r..
p e
}N
'^
- ,..,,,. n g
o s
This EGSG Idaho, Inc. report provides a review'of the submittals for f}
Hope Creek, Peach Bottom 2 and 3. Perry 1. and 2, and Pilgrim.1 for conformance U
t e
to Generic Letter 83-28 Items 2.1 (Part 1) Equipment Classification ~
j (RTS Components),
d
,-<y a
q 1.
- )
5 4.
'i i
\\
n a
+
1
. 4-'
g
'b <
...: c...,,.....n.....c. on :. sc.. c.
.* ;,.g,., -
].
Limited il
!l
' Distr butib:i a.
sae....:..n-y v.
Uncia ssi fied ?,
l
+
Unclassified ~
., s... c...m 1
+
....u 3
1
.---_.n.__...----------------
- - - - ~ -
4 m:
m