ML20215G274

Conformance to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of Generic Ltr 83-28, Reactor Trip Sys Vendor Interface Maine Yankee,St Lucie Units 1 & 2 & Waterford 3

ML20215G274
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie, Waterford, Maine Yankee, 05000000
Issue date:	03/31/1987
From:	Farmer F EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20214M128	List: ML20214M126 ML20214M149 ML20215G274
References
CON-FIN-D-6001, CON-FIN-D-6002 EGG-NTA-7592, GL-83-28, TAC-52851, TAC-52883, TAC-52884, TAC-57699, NUDOCS 8703310229
Download: ML20215G274 (12)

Text

.

L.-.

..:.--u...-.~....

. -... - ~...

s EGG-NTA-7592 CONFORMANCE TO ITEM 2.1 (PART 2) OF GENERIC LETTER 83-28 REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM VENDOR INTERFACE MAINE YANKEE ST. LUCIE-1 AND -2 WATERFORD-3 F.

G. Farmer Published March 1987 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-ACO7-76ID01570 FIN Nos. D6001 and D6002-e7483i6 ze9 KtF t

_.u

.,-- ;r m mm, -.

-~ ~, - c ~,--~ - - 7v 7 ; q z~~ n,:, v., w,-

.- ~

,--_._u,_;

.7 ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals for come of the Combustion Engineering (C-E) nuclear plants for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.1 (Part 2).

The report includes the following Combustion Engineering plants, and is in partial fulfillment of the following TAC Nos.:

Plant Docket Number TAC Number Mnine Yankee 50-309 52851 50-335 52883 St. Lucie-1 4

50-389 52884 St. Lucie-2 WEterford-3 ~

50-382 57699 l

1 ii t

'Mrnnv77. ' m*: ;s yrrr.=rwrv=+v.ypr~ p ryy-e n r.m-- ir ? n tw~r,m---?,,,,

W<

.,.. ~.. -..

i l

FOREWORD This report is provided as part of the program f or evaluating

, licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions Beced on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events."

This work is conducted for the U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Rsgulation, Division of PWR Licensing-A by EG&G Idaho, Inc.

The U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the cuthorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN Nos. D6001 and D6002.

iii t

a-

. m rr r y.m _ n,, y e 7..n ; ;. r 7 n.,,

.,,.,-m._-,,,,,--.,,.,,-,.,,,

- s c a= 1,,

.-r..~

CONTENTS ABSTRACT.............................................................

ii FOREWORD.............................................................

iii 1.

INTRODUCTION....................................................

1 2.

REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.............................................

2 3.

GROUP REVIEW RESULTS............................................

3 4.'

REVIEW RESULTS FOR MAINE YANKEE.................................

4 4

4.1 Evaluation................................................

4 4.2 Conclusion................................................

5.

REVIEW RESULTS FOR ST. LUCIE-1 AND -2...........................

5 5

5.1 Evaluation................................................

5.2 Conclusion................................................

5 6.

REVIEW RESULTS FOR WATERFORD-3..................................

6 6.1 Evaluation................................................

6 6

6.2 Conclusion................................................

7.

GROUP CONCLUSION................................................

7 8.

REFERENCES......................................................

8 Y

e iv l'

,.- -.. --.,.m.,.,,. e w.,,ymmm,yp,( _. _. _

..n.,

._w.

_,,, y, _,7.,,

}.. -

bONFORMANCE TO ITEM 2.1 (P4RT 2) OF GENERIC LETTER 83-28 REACTOR TdkP SYSTEM VENDOR INTERFACE MAINE YANKEE ST. LUCIE-1 AND -2 WATERFORD-3 1.

INTRODUCTION On July 0, 1903, Generic Letter 03-00' was tatued 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, cnd holders of construction permits.

This letter included required actions boced on generic implications of the Salem ATWS events.

These requirements

,hcve been published in Volume 2 of NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of ATWS Evcnts at the Galem Nuclear Power Plant.""

This report documents the EGkG Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals of four of the Combustion Engineering plants, Maine Yankee, St. Lucie-1 and -2, cnd Waterford-3, for conformance to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of Generic Lctter 83-28.

The submittals from the licensees and applicants utilized in th se evaluations are referenced in Section 8 of this report.

1 4

e r n w s,em,.mm,,,,, _, g,m.n,m._,,,,,

....c.. ;. p _;,

~

.a 2.

REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 2.1 (Part 2) (Reactor Trip System - Vendor Interface) 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 plent, and appropriately referenced or incorporated in plant instructions cnd procedures.

The vendor interface program is to include periodic communications with vendors to assure that all applicable information has bacn received, as well as a system of positive feedback with vendors for mnilings containing technical information, e.

g.,

licensee / applicant ccknowledgement for receipt of technical information.

That part of the vendor interface program which ensures that vendor

,information on RTS components, once acquired, is appropriately controlled, referenced and incorporated in plant instructions and procedures, will be ovoluated as part of the review of Item 2.2 of the Generic Letter.

Because the Nuclear Steam System Supplier (NSSS) is ordinarily also the cupplier 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 cpplicant 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 communication with the'NSSS or with the vendors of each of the componentsoftheReactorTriphystem.

3.

Confirm that* the interf ace ' identified by licensees / applicants includes

~

I

~

a system of positive feedback to confirm receipt of transmittals of technical information.

2 4

-m-n-n o m xa m a xm_ __ ;,.- _ nm, ap wer m,7m,mw.,, _

y

~

.. - ~. -

.. ~..;.; -.

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 cubmittals from each plant were reviewed to establish that Item 2.1 (Part 2) wmc specifically addressed.

Second, the submittals were evaluated to dstermine the extent to which each of the plants complies with the staff guidelines for Item 2.1 (Part 2).

e I

w --

.- ~ 2.... _ _ _.

.g.,

..pp m

mm7m,

..,7

. ;. 7. _,,_,..,;,.,.,_

4.

REVIEW RESULTS FOR MAINE YANKEE 5.1 Evaluation Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, the licensee for Maine Yankee, provided their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on June 18, 1985.

In that response, the licensee describes the Maine Yankee interface program established for the RTS.

The interface program for the RTS described includes annual contact with each RTS component vendor, vendor certification of the validity of Mnine Yankee technical information, and a system of positive feedback from tha component vendors.

5.2 Conclusion We find the program described in the licensee's submittal for the interface program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.

O 4

6 1

-., -... -,7 7,

y= 2, 73

.- ~., p wyy,-. w r,mm.,v,vy.--rarv wm,- n: ympy.. f. w

l 5.

REVIEW RESULTS FOR ST. LUCIE-1 AND -2 i

5.1 Evaluation Florida Power and Light Company, the licensee for St. Lucie-1 and -2, provided their response to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 8, 1983.

In that response, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for St. Lucie-1 and -2 is Combustion Engineering and that the RTS for St. Lucie io included as a part of the C-E interface program established for the St. Lucie NSSS.

The C-E interface program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between C-E and licensees / applicants such as "INFOBULLETINS" containing information and recommendations concerning C-E systems, and a cyatem of positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed rcceipts for technical information transmitted by C-E.

5.2 Conclusion We find the licensee *s confirming statement that St. Lucie is a p.trticipant in the Combustion Engineering interface program for the RTS meets the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.

l l

5 t

~%-

-- w m Never.tr py.7_--

7,,,

3 n.-, n y, 7,,, m, mp,,,,,_,,

4...

f 6.

REVIEW RESULTS FOR WATERFORD-3 6.1 Eval uati on Louisiana Power and Light, the licensee for Waterford-3, provided their rocponses to Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter on November 4,

1983, cnd May 11, 1984.

In those responses, the licensee confirms that the NSSS for Waterford-3 is Combustion Engineering and that the RTS for Waterford-3 10 included as a part of the C-E interface program established for the Waterford-3 NSSS.

The C-E interface program for the NSSS includes both periodic communication between C-E and licensees / applicants such as "INFOBULLETINS" containing information and recommendations concerning C-E systems, and a cyctem of positive feedback from licensees / applicants in the form of signed

- rcceipts for technical information transmitted by C-E.

6.2 Conclusion We find the licensee's confirming statement that Waterford-3 is a pcrticipant in the Combustion Engineering interface program for the RTS meats the staff position on Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the Generic Letter and is, therefore, acceptable.

e 6

4 s-

.... -., ~.

.w.... w.,

w e. u x 7.m a awa m n.

_m,

.,n

,mww _

nx

. ;_ _ C_m._ _ - _.... _.

s.

d 7.c GROUP CONCLUSION Il We conclude that the licensee / applicant responses for the listed Combustion Engineering plants for Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 are ccceptable.

/

w/

e O

7

. - x,.,~

-.w..,w.

u.,,_ u._x y u z w;a m mrc.

,w e.g.,,,

.r x ~,

-.7.,.y

,n n,y n,,

7......'~=

8.

REFERENCES 1.

NRC Letter, D.

G.

Eisenhut to all licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating License, and Holders of Construction Fermits,

" 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.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company letter to NRC, G. D.

Whittier to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Generic Letter 83-28, Items 2.1 and 2.2.2,"

June 18, 1985.

4.

Florida Power and Light letter to NRC, J.

W.

Williams to Darrel G. Eisenhut, November 8, 1983.

5.

Louisiana Power and Light letter to flRC, K.

W.

Cook to Darrel G.

Eisenhut, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 4, 1983.

6.

Louisiana Power and Light letter to NRC, K.

W.

Cook to Director of NNuclear Reactor Regulation, " Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.1," May 11, 1984.

i a

4 I

8 t

h >.m

~ew.a s w a:h. m,L y A :.n a m i m.w.~m,c m g m m w

,mi.

ar.v g.

gms, n

,