ML20245F347

SER Accepting Util 841001,871118 & 880609 Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.1,Parts 1 & 2 Re Evaluation of Reactor Trip Sys Equipment Classification & Vendor Interface,Respectively

ML20245F347
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	08/04/1989
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20245F345	List: ML20245F340 ML20245F347
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8908140246
Download: ML20245F347 (4)

Text

_ _ - _ _ _ _

, ENCLOSURE 1

~

SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.1 CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-461

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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 trfp 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 1; vel 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 the report on the generic implications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plti L. The results of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of ,

these events 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 by Illinois Pc'wer Company, the licensee for the Clinton Power Station Unit I for Item 2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28. The actual documents reviewed as part of this evaluation are listed in the references of this report.

2.0 EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION ITEM 2.1 (PART 1)

Item 2.1 (Part 1) requires the 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 a used in the plant to control safety-related activitics, including maintenance, work orders, and parts replacement.

8908140246 890804 PDR ADOCK 05000461, P PNU

- ~ , - ~ -

g i . .

The applicant for the Clinton Power Station, Unit I responded to the requirements af Item 2.1 (Part 1) with a submittal dated October 1, 1984. In this submittal, the applicant identified two sets of components that had not previously been classified as safety-related during his reviw of the classification of components required to trip the reactor. One, the Main Steamline Isolation Valve Limit Switches was classified as safety-related and the other, the Backup Scram Valves remained classified as non-safety-related since we had accepted the non-safety classification of these valves. The applicant also verified that activities that affect any safety-related components are classified as safety-related. However, when parts that are subcomponents are being procured, they may not have had their classification predetermined. In such cases,.the parts are cla~ssified according to the classifiution criteria and are entered on the Q List.

3.0 EVALUATION OF VENDOR INTERFACE ITEM 2.1 (PART 2)

Item 2.1 (Part 2) requires the licensee to confirm that an interface has been established with the NSSS vendor or with the vendors of each of the components of the Reactor Trip. System which includes:

periodic communication between the licensee / applicant and the NSSS vendor or the vendors of each of the components of the Reactor Trfp System, and a system positive feedback which confirms receipt by the licensee / applicant of transmittals ef vendor technical information.

The licensee for Clinton Power Station Unit 1 provided responses to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.1 (Part 2) in their submittals dated October 1, 1984, November 18, 1987 and June 9, 1986. The licensee has established a continuing vendor interface program for safety related RTS components to ensure that vender information is complete, current and controlled throughout the life of the plant. The vendor (General Electric Company) issues operation and maintenance manuals for GE supplied equipment. GE also issues Service InformationLetters(SILs)andRapidInformationCommunicationSILs (RICSILs) which communicate technical information to owners of BWRs. The intent of SILs is to promote improvements in plant performance and to alert BWR owners of any situations which could degrade performance. RICSILs are used for rapid communication of technical information about GE BWR situations l

or events which GE believes will be of general interest to BWR owners and operators. All informati m received by the licensee will be acknowledged by a letter to the vendor.

In addition to these information exchanges, GE currently has representatives at the Clinton site. This allows frequent, direct interactions between GE and the licensee personnel.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Based on our review of these responses, we find the applicants's statemente confiru that a program exists for identifying, classifying and treating components that are required for performance of the reactor trip function as i

l *. ,

i' .

safety related. This program meets the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) for 1 the Generic Letter 83-28 and is, therefore, acceptable.

Additionally, we find the licensee's statements confirm that a vendor interface program exists with the NSSS vendor for components that are required for performance of the reactor trip function. This pro 0 ram meets the j requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 2) of Generic Letter 83-28 and is, therefore, acceptable.

4

5.0 REFERENCES

1. NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating Licenses, and Holders of Construction Permits,

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

2. Letter, F. A. Spangenberg, Illinois Power Company to A. Schwencer, NRC, October 1, 1984.

3. Letter, F. A. Spangenberg, Illinois Power Company to NRC, November 18, 1987.

4. Letter, F. A. Spangenberg, Illinois Power Company to NRC, June 9, 1988.

I l $

F August 4,1989 l' Docket No. 50-461 , DISTRIBUTION

. Docket n le s NRC & Local PDRs PDIII-2 r/f MVirgilio Mr. Dale L. Holtzscher LLuther JHickman Acting Manager - Licensing and Safety OGC EJordan Clinton Power Station SGrimes ACRS (10)

'P. O. Box 678 D %rt file Mail Code V920 Clinton, Illinois 61727

Dear Mr. Holtzscher:

SUBJEC(: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR NRC GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.1 (PART 1) AND (PART 2) FOR THE CLINTON POWER STATION RE: Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 NP,C Generic Letter F-28, Item 2.1 (Part 1) required licensees to. confirm that all components whou functioning is required to trip the reactor are identified as safety-related on all plant documentation and in information handling systems that are used to control any activities performed on this safety-related equipment. Additionally, Item 2.1 (Part 2). of the same GL required licensees to confirm that they have established an interface with either the NSSS vendor or with the vendors of each of the components of their. Reactor Trip System.

The response was also required to confirm that this interface program includes periodic communication between the licensee and the vendor and a system of positive feedback which confirms receipt by the licensee of transmittals of technical information. You have responded to both parts of Item 2.1. Our review, as documented in the enclosed SER, finds your response to be acceptable.

Therefore, we consider Item 2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 to be closed.

Sincerely, original signed by:

John B. Hickman, Project Manager Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V, and Special Projects

Enclosure:

1.. Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosure:

See next page 0NW P4III-2:PM PDIII-2:LA ,ff) PDIII-2:(A)PD JHichnan:dmj LLuther d 'fxePShemanski 6/ y /89

^

P/ r /85T S 4 /89 L_ .__.-m_. m.