ML20214Q718
| ML20214Q718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Salem |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1986 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213E339 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-152 GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8706050131 | |
| Download: ML20214Q718 (4) | |
Text
k
_ SAFETY EVALUATION REDORT l
r>ENERIC LE T TER 83-28, ITEM P.1 ~(PART ?)
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS (RTS COMPONENT 51 SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1,7
. DOCKET NOS. 50-27?/311 INTRODi!CTinN AND
SUMMARY
On February ?S,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 of the undervoltage trip attachment.
Prior to this incident, on February 72, 1983, at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, an automatic trip signal w generated based on steam generator low-low level during plant start up.
In this case, the reactor was tripoed manually by the operator almost coin-cidentally with the automatic trip.
Following these incidents, on Feruary 28, 1083, the NRC Executive Director fo 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 results of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem unit incidents are reported in NUREG-1000. " Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant." As a result of this investigation, the Comission (NRC) reouested (by Generic letter 83-28 dated iluly 8,1983 )
I all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating Ifeense, and holders of construction pomits to respond to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two events.
0706050131 070529 BOA 152 PDR I
m
t 1,
This report is an evaluation of the response submitted by Public Service Electric 4 Gas Company, the licensee for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, for item ?.1 (Part 2) of Generic Letter 83-?8. The actual document's reviewed as part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of 9
this report.
Item 2.1 (Part ?) requires the licensee to confirm that an interface has been established with the NSSS or with the vendors of each of the components of the Reactor Trip System which includes:
periodic communication between the licensee / applicant and the 4
j NSSS or the vendors of each of the components of the Reactor Trip System, and, i
a system of positive feedback which confirms receipt by the 1
licensee / applicant of transmittals of vendor technical information.
i EVALUATION
)
The Itcensee for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 responded to 2
the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part ?) with submittals dated March 8,1963 and 3
March 14, 1983. The licensee stated in these submittals that Westinghouse is j
the NSSS for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and that the RTS 1
is included as part of the Westinghouse interface program established for this i
plant.
The response also confinns that this interface program includes both i
periodic communication between Westinghouse and the licensee and positive feedback from the licensee in the form of signed receipts for technical infonnation transmitted by Westinghouse.
i
. CONCLUSION Based on our review of these responses, we find the licensee's statements confirm that a vendor interface program exists with the NSSS vendor for components that are required for perfonnance of the reactor trip function.
This progran meets the requirements of item ?.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter 83-28, and is therefore acceptable.
REFERENCES 1.
NRC 1etter, 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
Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A. Uderitz to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, nivision of Licensing, " Reactor Trip Breaker Failure," March 8, 1983.
3.
Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A. Uderitz to D. G. Eisenhut, Director. Division of Licensing, " Corrective Action Program Related to Reactor Trip Breaker Failures," March 14, 1983.
.~
ENCLUWML ICSB SALP INPUT PLANT:
Salem nuclear Generating Station, dnits 1,2 l-SU8 JECT:
Review of G.L. 83-28 Item 2.1 (Part 2)
L.
EVALUATI0g PER M WICE ggggs
.i CRITERIA CATErm Y
]
{
W esent N/A No basis for assessment.
Involvement
]
1 Approach to
{
Resolution of -
1 Technical Issues Approach was direct and enabled ready verification of the acceptability of their program.
{
1 t
3 Responsiveness 1
The licensee descibed his program which met the requirements of this generic letter item.
j
'["
N/
No basis for assessment.
3 l
5.
Reportable Events N/A No basis for assessment.
i 1
7' 6.
Staffing
~
N/A No basis for assessment, i
N/A No b sis for assessment.,
4
o F
EGG-NTA-7448 INPUT FOR SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT XEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWE;t PLANT UNIT 1 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2 VIRGIL C. SUM 4ER NUCLEAR STATION TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM VENDOR INTERFACE ITEM 2.1 (PART 2) 0F GENERIC LETTER 83-28 F. G. Farmer Published November 1986 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002 I'b# typ pk
.s;:: mxw 42pp-
l t
i ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals for some of the Westinghouse (W) nuclear plants for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.1 (Part 2). The report includes the following plants, all Westinghouse, and is in partial fulfillment of the following TAC Nos.:
Plant Docket Number TAC Number Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant 50-305 52848 14cGuire Nuclear Station Unit 1 50-369 52852 McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 2 50-370 52853 Prairie Island Unit 1 50-282 52870 Prairie Island Unit 2 50-306 52871 3.:bint:n 2 50-251 52975 Salem Unit 1 50-272 52876 Salem Unit 2 50-311 52877 Shearon Harris Unit 1 (OL) 50-400 N/A South Texas Unit 1 (OL) 50-498 N/A South Texas Unit 2 (OL) 50-499 N/A Virgil C. Summer 50-395 52885 Trojan Nuclear Plant 50-344 52890 e
ii 1
l l
FOREWORD This report is provided as part of the program for evaluating licensee / applicant confomance to Generic Letter 83-28, " Require'd Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This work is conducted for the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of PWR Licensing-A by EG&G Idaho, Inc.
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission funded the work under the authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002.
0
= _ = = _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _
CONTENTS A S S TR A CT.............................................................
11 F O R E WO R D.............................................................
iii 1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................
1 2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.............................................
2 3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS............................................
3 4
REVIEW RESULTS FOR KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.................
4 4.1 Evaluation................................................
4 4.2 Conclusion................................................
4 5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2........
5 5.1 Evaluation................................................
5 5.2 Conclusion................................................
5 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATI'NG PLANT UNITS 1 2.................................................
6 6.1 Evaluation................................................
6-6.2 Conclusion................................................
6 7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2......................................................
7 7.1 Evaluation................................................
7 7.2 Conclusion................................................
7 8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2.......
8 8
8.1 Evaluation................................................
8.2 Conclusion................................................
8 9.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1.........................................................
9 9.1 E v a l u a t i on................................................
9 9.2 Conclusion................................................
9
- 10. REVIEW RESULTS FOR SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2............
10
-10.1 E v a l u at i o n................................................
10 iv I
l i,.w ae.-g c--i
--, - -.+-
10.2 Conclusion................................................
10
- 11. REVIEW RESULTS FOR VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION.............
11 11.1 Evaluation................................................
11 11 11.2 Conclusion................................................
- 12. REVIEW RE SULTS FOR TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT.........................
12 12.1 Evaluation................................................
12 12.2 Conclusion................................................
12
- 13. GROUP CONCLUSION................................................
13 14 REFERENCES......................................................
14 e
G l
f
[
V l
1 I
l r
1 e--.we-,r--
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.1 (PART 2)
KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2 VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT 1.
INTRODUCTION I
On July 8,1983, Generic Letter 83-28 was issued by O. G. Eisenhut, Director of the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for operating licenses, and holders of construction permits. This letter included required actions based on generic implications of the Salem ATWS events. These requirements have been published in Volume 2 of NUREG-1000,
~
" Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant."2 This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals of a group of Westinghouse plants including Kewaunee, McGuire Units 1 and 2,
~
Prairie Island Units 1 and 2, Robinson 2, Salem Units 1 and 2, Shearon Harris Unit 1, South Texas Units 1 and 2, Summer and Trojan for conformance to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of Generic Letter 83-28. The submittals from the licensees and applicants utilized in these evaluations are referenced in Section 14 of this report.
6 1
.=.
. =.
1 2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 2.1 (Part 2) (Reactor Trip System - Vendor Interf ace) requires licensees and applicants to establish, implement and maintain a continuing peogram to ensure that vendor information on Reactor Trip System (RTS) components is complete, current and controlled throughout the life of the plant, and appropriately referenced or incorporated in plant instructions and procedures. The vendor interf ace program is to include periodic comunications with vendors to assure that all applicable information has been received, as well as a system of positive feedback with vendors for mailings containing technical information, e. g., licensee / applicant acknowledgement for receipt of technical information.
That part of the vendor interf ace program which ensures that vendor information on RTS components, once acquired, is appropriately controlled, referenced and incorporated in plant instructions and procedures, will be evaluated as part of 'the review of Item 2.2 of the Generic Letter.
Because the Nuclear Steam System Supplier (NSSS) is ordinarily also the supplier of the entire RTS, the NSSS is also the principal source of information on the components of the RTS. This review of the licensee and a:plicant submittals will:
1.
Confirm that the licensee / applicant has identified an interface with either the NSSS or with the vendors of each of the components of the Reactor Trip System.
~
2.
Confirm that the interface identified by licensees / applicants includes periodic comunication with the NSSS or with the vendors of each of the components of the Reactor Trio System.
3.
Confirm that the interface identified by licensees / applicants includes a system of positive feedback to confirm receipt of transmittals of technical information.
2
- a.
3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS The relevant submittals from each of the included reactor plants were reviewed to determine compliance with Item 2.1 (Part 2). First, the submittals from each plant were reviewed to establish _ that Item 2.1 (Part
- 2) was specifically addressed.
Second, the submittals were evaluated to determine the extent to which each of the plants complies with the staff guidelines for Item 2.1 (Part 2).
e e
3
-~
4 REVIEW RESULTS FOR KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWE9 PLANT 4.1 Evaluation Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, the licensee for Kewaunee, peovided their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on
~
Movember 15, 1984 In that response, the licensee confi ms that the NSSS for Kewaunee is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Kewaunee is included as a part of the Westinghouse interface program established for the Kewaunee NSSS.
The Westinghouse interf ace program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
4.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Kewaunee is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Lette* and is, therefore, acceptable.
9 4
5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 5.1 Evaluation Duke Power Company, the licensee for McGuire Units 1 and 2, provided
. their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 4, 1983.
In that response, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for McGuire Units 1 and 2 is Westinghouse and that the RTS for McGuire Units 1 and 2 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interface program established for the McGuire Units 1 and 2 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interface program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
5.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that McGuire Units 1 and 2 is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.
O O
5
= - -
6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 6.1 Evaluation Northern confirms Power Company, the licensee for Prairie Island Units 1 and 2, responded to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 4, 1983.
In that response, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interface program established for the Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interf ace program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
6.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, ac:ectable.
9 6
7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT NO. 2 7.1 Evaluation Carolina Power and Light, the licensee for Robinson 2, responded to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 7,1983.
In that response the licensee confirms that the NSSS for Robinson 2 is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Robinson 2 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interface program established for the Robinson 2 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interface program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts'for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
7.2 Conclusion 4
The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Robinson 2 is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the s aff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.
O e
7
~
~ ~
- - ~
8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 8.1 Evaluation Public Service Electric and Gas, the licensee for Salem Units 1 and 2, responded to the concern of Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on March 8, 1983, and March 14, 1983.
In those responses, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for Salem Units 1 and 2 is' Westinghouse and that the RTS for Salem Units 1 and 2 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interf ace program established for the Salem Units 1 and 2 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interf ace program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
4 8.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Salem Units 1 and 2 is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.
O e
e 8
y 9.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 9.1 Evaluation Carolina Power and Light, the applicant for Shearon Harris Unit 1, responded to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 7,1983.
In that response, the applicant confirms that the NSSS for Shearon Harris Unit 1 is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Shearon Harris Unit 1 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interface program established for the Shearon Harris Unit 1 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interface progran for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and p'ositive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse, 5.2 Conclusion The staff finds the applicant's confirming statement that Shearon Harris Unit 1 is a participant in the Westinghouse interface program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the' Generic Letter and is, tnerefore, acceptable.
0 9
- 10. REVIEW RESULTS FOR SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2 10.1 Evaluation Houston Lighting and Power, the applicant for South Texas Units 1 and 2, provided their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic letter on June 28', 1985.
In that response, the applicant confirms that the NSSS for South Texas Units 1 and 2 is Westinghouse and that the RTS for South Texas Units 1 and 2 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interf ace program established for the South Texas Units 1 and 2 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interface program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback fran licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
10.2 Conclusion The staff finds the applicant's confirming statement that South Texas Units 1 and 2 is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceotable.
9 O
10
- 11. REVIEW RESULTS FOR VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION 11.1 Evaluation South Carolina Electric and Gas, the licensee for Virgil C. Summer, provided their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 4,1983.
In that response, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for Summer is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Summer is included as a part of the Westinghouse interf ace progran established for the Summer NS$5.
The Westinghouse interf ace prot sn for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
11.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Summer is a particioant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.
8 I
11 i
- 12. REVIEW RESULTS FOR TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT 12.1 Evaluation l
Portland General Electric Company, the licensee for Trojan Nuclear I
Plant, provided their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 4,1983.
In that response, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for Trojan is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Trojan is included as a part of the Westinghouse interface program established for the Trojan NSSS.
The Westinghouse interface program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse, 11.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Trojan is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.
O e
e 12
^
th
.W
- 13. GROUP CONCLUSION The staff concludes that the licensee / applicant responses for the listed Westinghouse plants for Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 are acceptable.
0 e
4 e
O 9
l 13
14 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.
Generic Imolications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant NUREG-1000, Volume 1, April 1983; Volume 2, July 1983.
3.
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation letter to NRC, D. C. Hintz to 0.
G. Eisenhut Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic Implications of SalemATWSEvents," November 15, 1984 4.
Duke Power Company letter to NRC, W. T. Orders to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, November 4,1983.
5.
Northern States Power Company letter to NRC, D. M. Musolf, to Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 4, 1983.
6.
Carolina Power and Light letter to NRC, A. B. Cutter to 0. G.
Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Event's," November 7,1983.
7.
Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A. Uderitz to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Reactor Trip Breaker e
Failure," March 8,1983.
8.
Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A. Uderitz to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Corrective Action Program Related to Reactor Trip Breaker Failures," March 14, 1983.
9.
Carolina Power and Light letter to NRC, A. B. Cutter to D. G.
Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 7, 1983.
- 10. Houston Lighting and Power letter to NRC, J. H. Goldberg to Hugh J.
Thompson, Jr., Director, Division of Licensing, " Response to Generic l
Letter 83-28, Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," June 28, 1985.
- 11. South Carolina Electric and Gas letter to NRC, O. W. Dixon to Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Generic Letter 83-28," November 4,1983.
- 12. Portland General Electric Company letter to NRC, Bart D. Withers, to Darrel G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 4,1983.
j 14
. -=:..-.: -.
-.. ~ - - - -. _ - _ - -,
SAFETY EVALUATION REDORT GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 7.1 (pART 21 VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS (RTS COMPONENTS)
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1,2 00CKET NOS. 50-27?/311 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 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 Fower Plant, an automatic trip signal was generated based on s, team generator low-low level during plant start-up.
In this case, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator almost coin-cidentally with the automatic trip.
Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO), directed the staff to investigate and report on the generic implications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant.
l The results of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem unit incidents are reported in NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant." As a result of this investigation, I
the Commission (NRC) recuested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated iluly 8,1983 )
l all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and l
l holders of construction permits to respond to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two events.
l l
l
2-This report is an evaluation of the response submitted by Public Service Electric & Gas Company, the licensee for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, for Item 2.1 (Part 2) of Generic Letter 83-?8. The actual documents reviewed as part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of this report.
Item 2.1 (Part ?) requires the licensee to confirm that an interface has been established with the NSSS 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 or the vendors of each of the components of the Reactor Trip System, and a system of positive feedback which confims receipt by the licensee / applicant of transmittals of vendor technical information.
EVALUATION The licensee for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 responded to I
the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part ?) with submittals dated March 8, 1983 and 3
March 14, 1983. The licensee stated in these submittals that Westinghouse is the NSSS for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and that the RTS is included as part of the Westinghouse interface program established for this plant. The response also confims that this interface program includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and the licensee and positive feedback from the licensee in the fonn of signed receipts for technical l
information transmitted by Westinghouse.
W m
-*==*==**-=r
-6 m
CONCLUSION Based on our review of these responses, we find the licensee's statements confim that a vendor interface program exists with the NSSS vendor' for components that are required for perfomance of the reactor trip function.
This progran meets the requirements of item 7.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter 83-28, and is therefore acceptable.
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.
Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A. Uderitz to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, nivision of Licensing, " Reactor Trip Rreaker Failure," March 8,1983.
3.
Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A. Uderitz to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Corrective Action Program Related to Reactor Trip Breaker Failures," March 14, 1983.
Em:Lusunt ICSB SALP IllPUT i
PLANT:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station,tinits 1,5
SUBJECT:
Review of G.L. 83-28 Item 2.1 (Part 2)
EVALUATION PERFONIANCE gAsg5 CRITERIA CATErm Y l
j Management N/A No basis for assessment.
Involvement Approach to Resolution of.
1 Approach was direct and enabled ready verification of the acceptability of Technical Issues their program.
l 3
Responsiveness 1
The licensee descibed his program which met the requirements of this generic letter item.
'["
N/
No basis for assessment.
3 5.
Reportable Events N/A No basis for assessment.
7' 6.
Staffing N/A No basis for assessment.
~
N/A No basis for assessment.
- 7. Training
...e.,
EGG-NTA-7448 INPUT FOR SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2 VIRGIL C. SU!HER NUCLEAR STATION TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM VENDOR INTERFACE ITEM 2.1 (PART 2) 0F GENERIC LETTER 83-29 F. G. Farmer Published November 19E6 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002 moso #
4g ty
ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals for some of the Westinghouse (W) nuclear plants for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.1 (Part 2). The report includes the following plants, all Westinghouse, and is in partial fulfillment of the following TAC Nos.:
plant Docket Number TAC Number Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant 50-305 52848 McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 1 50-369 52852 McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 2 50-370 52853 Prairie Island Unit 1 50-282 52870 Prairie Island Unit 2 50-306 52871 Robinsen 2 50-261 52S75 Salem Unit 1 50-272 52876 Salem Unit 2 50-311 52377 Shearon Harris Unit 1 (OL) 50-400 N/A South Texas Unit 1 (OL) 50-498 N/A South Texas Unit 2 (OL) 50-499 N/A Virgil C. Summer 50-395 52885 Trojan Nuclear Plant 50-344 52890 t
11
FOREWORD This report is provided 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 conducted for the U.
'S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of PWR Licensing-A by EG&G Idaho, Inc.
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission funded the work under the authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002.
O i
iii
CONTENTS A B S T R A CT.............................................................
11 F O R E WOR D.............................................................
iii 1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................
1 2.
R E V I E W R EQU IR EMENT S.............................................
2 3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS............................................
3 4
REVIEW RESULTS FOR KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.................
4 4
4.1 Evaluation................................................
4.2 Conclusion................................................
4 5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR McGUIR NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2........
5 5.1 Evaluation................................................'
5 5.2 Conclusion................................................
5
~
6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING 6
PLANT UNITS 1 2.................................................
6 6.1 Evaluation................................................
6.2 Conclusion................................................
6 7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, 7
UNIT NO. 2......................................................
7.1 Evaluation................................................
7 7
7.2 Conclusion................................................
8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2.......
8 8
8.1 Evaluation................................................
8 8.2 Conclusion................................................
9.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 9
UNIT 1.........................................................
9.1 Evaluation................................................
9 9.2 Conclusion................................................
9
- 10. REVIEW RESULTS FOR SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2............
10 10 10.1 Evaluation................................................
iv
10 10.2 Conclusion................................................
- 11. REVIEW RESULTS FOR VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION.............
11 11.1 Evaluation................................................
11 11 11.2 Conclusion................................................
- 12. REVIEW RESULTS FOR TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT.........................
12 12.1 Evaluation................................................
12 12.2 Conclusion................................................
12
- 13. GROUP CONCLUSION................................................
13 14
- 14. REFERENCES......................................................
.I 8
J e
O V
l
~~
'v
- - ~ - _ _ _
b-
~7'm
>g,,
'N-,%,
~
1 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.1 (PART 2)
KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2
, SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2 VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT 1.
INTRODUCTION I
On July 8,1983, Generic Letter 83-28 was issued by D. G. Eisenhut, Director of the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for operating licenses, and holders of construction permits. This letter included required actions based on generic implications of the Salem ATWS events. These requirements have been published in Volume 2 of NUREG-1000,
" Generic Imolications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant."2 This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals of a group of Westinghouse plants including Kewaunee, McGuire Units 1 and 2, Prairie Island Units 1 and 2, Robinson 2, Salem Units 1 and 2, Shearon Harris Unit 1, South Texas Units 1 and 2, Sumer and Trojan for conformance to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of Generic Letter 83-28. The submittals from the licensees and applicants utilized in these evaluations are referenced in Section 14 of this report.
j l
l l
l 1
2-
2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 2.1 (Part 2) (Reactor Trip System - Vendor Interf ace) requires licensees and applicants to establish, implement and maintain a continuing program to ensure that vendor information on Reactor Trip System (RTS) components is complete, current and controlled throughout the life of the plant, and appropriately referenced or incorporated in plant instructions and procedures. The vendor interf ace program is to include periodic communications with vendors to assure that all applicable information has been received, as well as a system of positive feedback with vendors for mailings containing technical information, e. g.,
licensee / applicant acknowledgement for receipt of technical information.
That part of the vendor interf ace program which ensures that vendor information on RTS components, once acquired, is appropriately controlled, referenced and incorporated in plant instructions and procedures, will be evaluated as part of 'ths r4 view of Item 2.2 of the Generic Letter.
Because the Nuclear Steam System Supplier (NSSS) is ordinarily also the sucolier of the entire RTS, the NSSS is also the principal source of information on the components of the RTS. This review of the licensee and 1:plican; submittals will:
1.
Confirm that the licensee / applicant has identified an interf ace with either the NSSS or with the vendors of each of the components of the Reactor Trip System.
2.
Confirm that the interface identified by licensees / applicants includes periodic communication with the NSSS or with the vendors of each of the components of the Reactor Trio System.
3.
Confirm that the interf ace identified by licensees / applicants includes a system of positive feedback to confirm receipt of transmittals of technical information.
2
P 3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS The relevant submittals from each of the included reactor plants were reviewed to determine compliance with Item 2.1 (Part 2). First, the submittals from each plant were reviewed to establish that Item 2.1 (Part
- 2) was specifically addressed.
Second, the submittals were evaluated to determine the extent to which each of the plants complies with the staff guidelines for Item 2.1 (Part 2).
e S
e 3
~
^
4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 4.1 Evaluation Wisconsin Public Service Corpor3 tion, the licensee for Kewaunee, provided their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 15, 1984 In that response, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for Kewaunee is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Kewaunee is included as a part of the Westinghouse interf ace program established for the Kewaunee NSSS.
The Westinghouse interface program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
4.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Kewaunee is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.
G S
4
5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 5.1 Evaluation Duke Power Company, the licensee for McGuire Units 1 and 2, provided their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 4, 1983.
In that response, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for McGuire Units 1 and 2 is Westinghouse and that the RTS for McGuire Units 1 and 2 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interf ace program established for the McGuire Units 1 and 2 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interface program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
5.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that McGuire Units 1 and 2 is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS neets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.
9 5
6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 6.1 Evaluation Northern confirms Power Company, the licensee for Prairie Island Units 1 and 2, responded to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 4, 1983.
In that response, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for. Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interface program established for the Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interf ace program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
6.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 is a participant in the Westinghouse interface program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefcre, ac:20 able.
I 6
i l
f 7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT NO. 2 7.1 Evaluation Carolina Power.and Light, the licensee for Robinson 2, responded to i
Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 7,1983.
In that response the licensee confirms that the NSSS for Robinson 2 is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Robinson 2 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interf ace program established for the Robinson 2 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interf ace program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts' for technical. information transmitted by Westinghouse.
7.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Robinson 2 is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.
a S
7
=--:-
= - :. - - -.... - --.
8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 8.1 Evaluation Public Service Electric and Gas, the licensee for Salem Units 1 and 2, responded to the concern of Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on March 8,1983, and March 14, 1983.
In those responses, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for Salem Units 1 and 2 is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Salem Units 1 and 2 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interface program established for the Salem Units 1 and 2 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interface program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
8.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Salem Units 1 and 2 is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, ac:eptable.
O e
8
~~
9.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 9.1 Evaluation Carolina Power and Light, the applicant for Shearon Harris Unit 1, responded to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 7,1983.
In that response, the applicant confirms that the NSSS for Shearon Harris Unit 1 is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Shearon Harris Unit 1 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interface program established for the Shearon Harris Unit 1 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interface program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
5.2 Conclusion The staff finds the applicant's confirming statement that Shearon Harris Unit 1 is a participant in the Westinghouse interface program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.
9
- 10. REVIEW RESULTS FOR SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2
~
10.1 Evaluation T
Houston Lighting and Power, the applicant for South Texas Units 1 and 2, provided their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on June 28, 1985.
In that response, the applicant confirms that the NSSS for South Texas Units:1 and 2 is Westinghouse and that the RTS for South Texas Units 1 and 2 is included as a part of the Westinghouse interf ace program established for the South Texas Units 1 and 2 NSSS.
The Westinghouse interf ace program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees /apolicants and positive feedback from licensees /aoplicants in the form of. signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
10.2 Conclusion The staff finds the applicant's confirming statement that South Texas Units 1 and 2 is a participant in the Westinghouse interface progran for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter 19d is, therefore, a :ectable.
O 1
i 10
=,___-
2
l
~
- 11. REVIEW RESULTS FOR VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION 11.1 Evaluation South Carolina Electric and Gas, the licensee for Virgil C. Summer, provided their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 4,1983.
In that response, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for Summer is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Summer is included as a part of the Westinghouse interf ace progran established for the Summer NSSS.
The Westinghouse interf ace program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.
11.2 -Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Summer is a -
particioant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.
I i
G 0
l
\\
11 l
l L
i
- 12. REVIEW RESULTS FOR TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT 12.1 Evaluation Portland General Electric Company, the licensee for Trojan Nuclear Plant, provided their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 4, 1983.
In that response, the licensee confirms that t.he NSSS for Trojan is Westinghouse and that the RTS for Trojan is included as a part of the Westinghouse interf ace program established for the Trojan NSSS.
The Westinghouse interf ace program for the NSSS includes both periodic connunication between Westinghouse and licensees / applicants and positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse, 11.2 Conclusion The staff finds the licensee's confirming statement that Trojan is a participant in the Westinghouse interf ace program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.
f 12
.=. =
- 13. GROUP CONCLUSION The staff concludes that the licensee / applicant responses for the listed Westinghouse plants for Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 are acceptable.
e e
d i
i G
i l
t I
1 l
l 13 l
=.. -. -
= = = = = = -.. -.. -. -
..~
14'.
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.
Generic Imolications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant NUREG-1000, Volume 1, April 1983; Volume 2, July 1983.
3.
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation letter to NRC, D. C. Hintz to D.
G. Eisenhut Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 15, 1984.
4.
Duke Power Company letter to NRC, W. T. Orders to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, November 4,1983.
Nort'ern States Power Company letter to NRC, D. M. Musolf, to 5.
n Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 4, 1983.
6.
Carolina Power and Light letter to NRC, A. 8. Cutter to D. G.
Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 7,1983.
7.
Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A. Uderitz to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Reactor Trip Breaker Failure," March 8,1983.
8.
Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A. Uderitz to
- 0. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Corrective Action roger. talated to Reactor Trip Breaker Failures," March 14, 1983.
o 9.
Carolina Power and Light letter to NRC, A. B. Cutter to 0. G.
Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 7,1983.
- 10. Houston Lighting and Power letter to NRC, J. H. Goldberg to Hugh J.
Thompson, Jr., Director, Division of Licensing, " Response to Generic Letter 83-28. Required Actions Based on Generic Implicatiens of Salem ATWS Events," June 28, 1985.
i
- 11. South Carolina Electric and Gas letter to NRC, 0. W. Dixon to Harold
[
R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Generic Letter 83-28," November 4,1983.
1
- 12. Portland General Electric Company letter to NRC, Bart D. Withers, to l
Darrel G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic l
Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 4, 1983.
i i
I 14 i
-.....~.
__ _