ML20148H455

Safety Evaluation Accepting Util 840405 Response to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.1,(Part 2) Re Vendor Interface Programs & Reactor Trip Sys Components

ML20148H455
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/24/1988
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20148H450	List: ML20148H445 ML20148H455
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8803290428
Download: ML20148H455 (3)

Text

. _ _ _ - _ - -

4

'. s p uo

1. ~go UNITED STATES

[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7, E WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555

\*sss*/A. ,

aa SAFETY EVAL.UATION GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.1 (PART 2)

~

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS (RTS COMPONENTS)

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 182 DOCKET NOS. 50-266/301

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the Sdlem 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 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.

The results of the stoff'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) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8,19831 )

all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to generic issues raised by the analyses nf these two ATWS events.

$gg @@ g6 9

y_ _ . . . - , . . , _ . , . . . _ . .

2-This report is an evaluation of the response submitted by Wisconsin Electric Power Company, the licensee for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 182, for __.

Item 2.1 (Part 2) of Generic Letter 83-28. The actual documents reviewed as part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of the report.

Item 2.1 (Part 2) requires the licensee to conf,irm 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 confirms receipt by the licensee /

applicant of transmittals of vendor technical information.

2.0 EVALUATION The licensee for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 182 responded to the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 2) with a submittal dated April 5,19842 . The licensee stated in this submittal that Westinghouse is the NSSS vendor for the Point Beach 1&2 units and that the RTS is included as part of. the Westinghouse interface program established for this plant. The response also confirms that this interface program includes both periodic communication between Westinghouse and the licensee and positive feedback from the licensee in the form of signed receipts for technical information transmitted by Westinghouse.

O

3.0 CONCLUSION

Based on our review of this response, we find the licensee's statements confirm that a vendor interf ace program exists with the NSSS vendor for components that are required for performance of the reactor trip function.

This program meets the requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 2) of the 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 License, and Holders of Construction Permits, "Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.

2. Wisconsin Electric Power Company letter to NRC, C. W. Fay to H. R.

Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, "Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," April 5, 1984, i

l I

a