NUREG-1000, Safety Evaluation Accepting Util 831114 & 851023 Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.1 (Part 1),confirming That All Applicable Components Identified as safety-related

Safety Evaluation Accepting Util 831114 & 851023 Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.1 (Part 1),confirming That All Applicable Components Identified as safety-related

ML20247Q931
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	04/03/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20247Q908	List: NUREG-1000, Safety Evaluation Accepting Util 831114 & 851023 Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.1 (Part 1),confirming That All Applicable Components Identified as safety-related
References
RTR-NUREG-1000 GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8904070223
Download: ML20247Q931 (2)

Text

._.

c.s it:

0  % UNITED STATES

[

5

}

tj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j

k.....,/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION GPU NUCLEAR CORPOP,ATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.1 (PART 1)

DOCKET NO. 50-219

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 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 Executiva 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 Plant. 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 GPU Nuclear Corporation, the licensee for Oyster Creek Nuclear S+ation for Item 2.1 (Part 1)ofGenericLetter03-28. Item 2.1 (Part 1) requires the licensee to 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.

- evoAO%h [ '

PUB F

1 2.0 EVALUATION The licensee for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station provided responses to Generic Letter 83-28 Item 2.1 (Part 1) in submittals dated November 14, 1983 and October 23, 1985. The licensee stated that all components whose function is required to trip the reactor are treated as safety-related for plant activities. The licensee has an equipment quality classification list program to identify the safety classification of major systems, components and structures at the plant as well as provisions for controlling safety-related

activities associated with these items. Procedures exist to insure that safety I

grade components are installed where required. As maintenance is performed, or parts are re-ordered, each work order or r,urchase order is evaluated on a case-by-case basis using engineering judgement. Any hardware modifications, as a result of maintenance or plant modifications, are evaluated by Quality Control and the Group Shift Supervisor for adequacy of classification and supporting documentation before it is turned over to the plant.

3.0 CONCLUSION

Based on our review, we conclude that a program exists for identifying, classifying, and treating components as safety-related when they are required for the successful performance of a reactor trip function. This program meets the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28, and is, therefore, acceptable.

4.0 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, P. B. Fiedler, GPU Nuclear Corporation to NRR, NRC, November 14, 1983.

3. Letter, P. B. Fiedler, GPU Nuclear Corporation to NRR, NRC, October 23, 1985.

Principal Contributor: S. Rhow Dated: April 3, 1989

. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _