ML19332A448
| ML19332A448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1980 |
| From: | Epps R LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Shemanski P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RE-80-09-04, RE-80-9-4, NUDOCS 8009150531 | |
| Download: ML19332A448 (2) | |
Text
-
a.
.g T
M-W Wi,yCE ip/ppO!:r M;3CRA\\ TOR \\/
7 yj 1
e I
September 8, 1980 RE 80-09-04 Mr. Paul Shemanski, Operating Reactors Assessment Branch Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Paul:
SUBJECT:
H.B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT NO. 2 00CKET N0. 50-261 DIESEL GENERATOR STATUS ANNUNCIATOR
REFERENCE:
1.
NRC letter Carolina Power & Light Company (CPLC) datea Marcn 28, 1977
- 2. 'CPLC letter to NRC datea May 18, 1977 3.
NRC letter to CPLC oated April 10, 1978 4.
CPLC letter to NRC dated June 6, 1978 5.
LLL report, "UCID-18145, " STATUS OF EVALUATION AND
-MODIFICATION OF DIESEL GENERATOR STATUS ANNUNCIATOR SYSTEMS AT VARIOUS U.S. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS," October 1979 l
In t3eir letter [Ref. 1], the NRC.reelested that CPLC provide information on-l the s.Itus' annunciator system for.the diesel generators at their facility.
This request for information was prompted by reports from licensees, i.e.
LER's on incidents where diesel generators failed to respond to automatic
~
start signals because control switches or lockout ano shutdown relays were left in the shutdown condition by operators unaware of their status.
The principal reasons for this lack of awareness were:
1.
The sharing of annunciator stations for both disabling and non-disabling alarm conditions, 2.
wording on annunciator windows for disabling conditions which i
did not specifically say a diesel generator emergency start b was-blocked, O
V &'
O seesiso S 3j ms, 1
~.
~
a.
N
- 3. ' disabling conditions which were not annunciated in the Control Room.
The licensee responded by letter (Ref. 2],-describing the diesel generator annunciator system at H.B. Robinson Unit 2 Plant.
A. review of the licensee's response resulted in a follow-up letter from NRC dated April 10,.1978,[Ref.
3]. The_ licensee further responded by letter dated June 6, 1978_ outlining modifications which would meet the NRC Staff positions. These proposals were further reviewed by LLL and reported in the LLL status report dated October 1979[Ref.5].
-No further action should be required of the licensee, however, NRC should verify that the proposed modifications as outlined. in CPLC letter of June 6, 1978 have been implemented. _The results of this verification should be documented.
/
RD C.
Special I s es Program Nuclear Systems Safety Program RCE:el Copy to:
M.H. Dittmore
.R.A. Victor
_