ML17216A308

Forwards Response to 850429 Request for Addl Info on Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 1.1 Re post-trip Review.Revised Procedures Re post-trip Review & Responsibilities of Shift Technical Advisor Encl

ML17216A308
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	10/11/1985
From:	Williams J FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Butcher E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17216A309	List: ML17216A308 ML17216A310 ML17216A311
References
GL-83-28, L-85-374, NUDOCS 8510180087
Download: ML17216A308 (6)

Text

"~>P%~!'f. i4~~'~<'>":~C' ':WR:%~i'.>~.,%~"":Fg~":::";~~Ave: Z'gMg~w.':.>>"'~>);%>4~"',*'.i~i "P',+"f:-":~~3)

'-.4', ~<);,-': (RlnS),.',

P..'

a~tessioi lfhR

-, AEGVi;ATOM~IM<.Olid.AYIOb,'D'Ib,'rR'IBOT,fdr<~~STFM,.

63iO1tiogs) iAic.bt'tMdb/Yo/~1"'NdT'NVfzf5: fN FACIL:50-335 St. Lucie Plant~ Unit 1< Florida Power 50-389 St ~ Lucio Planti Unit 2, Florida Power L Light Light Co.

Co

'o'c'KEl M 05000335 05000389 8 ~

AUTH ~ NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION NILLIAMSgJ.W. Florida Power 5 Light Co, RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION BUTCHERgE ~ J ~ Operating Reactors Branch 3

SUBJECT:

Forwards response to 850429 request for addi info on Generic Ltr 83~28i Item 1. 1 re post>>trip review,Revised procedures re post"trip review 8 responsibilities of shift technical advisor encl.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: A055D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL Q SIZEo

~ +~+

TITLE: OR/Licensing Submittal: Salem ATHS Events GL-83"28 NOTES: 05000335 OLe02/Oi/76 05000389 OL:04/06/83 RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL NRR ORB3 BC 01 3 3 NRR ORB3 BC 01 3 3 INTERNAL: ACRS 6 6 ADM/LFMB 1 0 ELD/HDS2 1 0 IE/DI 1 1 IE/DQAVT 1 1 NRR/DE/EQB 1 1 NRR/DE/MEB 1 1 NRR/DHFS/HFEB 1 1 NRR/DHFS/LQB 1 1 NRR/DL DIR 1 1 NRR/DL/DRAB 1 1 NRR/DL/SSPB 1 1 NRR/DL/TAPMG 1 1 NRR/DSI/ASS 1 1 NRR/DSI/ICSB 2 2 NRR .

SB 1 1=

NRR/DSI/RSB 1 1 FI 04 1 1 RGN2 1 1 EXTERNAL: 24X 1 1 LPDR 03 NRC PDR 02 1 1 NSIC 05 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 35 ENCL 33

~ ~ ~ P~ 4 ~a<:X~gV'~7

>sl '.~ t '~ M,

~ ~+~~~a%p~".~"

Mq l, V'.~jWwjf fj 'L~~

w,L" ' ~ i,t'i~ ','~~<y

>'"p+'~i~ .

< g'p ~g e; z >

' g M<g ~ e'J <. A~M>~~~~Vi~~'v'qua~ 'g4 ~

8 >c>qy'w'g~pdppp

'k.z p Yp -p P"Fj, P'" 3FY4)5$ $ ~

'*)

f f'peal'f l f ~,-'r +)V G~~gt'f9) ) ~~"~1~.>$ f Pig%)'-' '~ $ 7k 4 "k ~~

' t 3'I > g'<$~)g'If J ~~>~.J$ < .,Q ~

~ ~

t o~ ~

v l

1 II N 'h

} "l h

0>>

%lrei sA%

FLORIDA POWER 8( LIGHT COMPANY Qg 1 1 1885 r.'7 ( 1* L-85-374 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. Edward J. Butcher, Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch II3 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulation Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Butcher:

Re: St. Lucie Units I 8 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 6 50-389 Generic I etter 83-28 Item I. I - Post Tri Review Attached is FPL's response to NRC's April 29, l985 letter, Request for Additional Information (RAI) regarding St. Lucie Plants Post Trip Review procedures. The Post Trip Review procedure was revised in June I 985 and addresses your concerns. In addition, the "Duties and Responsibilities of Shift Technical Advisor" (STA) procedure was revised in July, 1985 and includes an STA abnormal occur'rence report which provides additional information and record keeping for Post Trip Review as well as other events.

Attachment I - Point by point response to RAI Attachment 2 - OP 0030I I 9 Rev. 2 "Post Trip Review" Attachment 3 - AP 0005725 Rev. 6 "Duties 5 Responsibilities of Shift Technical Advisorii Very truly yours, J. W. W' s, Jr.

Group ce President Nuclear Energy JWW/cab GR M I /002/ I 85iOi80087 85iOii',

PDR P 'DR

.ADOCK'05000335 PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

ATTACHMENT I TO L-85-374 Response to NRC Request for Additional Information on item I.I, Generic Letter 83-28 (Refer to Specific Sections of OP 0030I I 9 Rev. 2 to Evaluate Response)

NRC SE Concern III. A. Licensee indicated that a Post-trip review is conducted to identify the cause of the trip prior to the plant restart. We find that this action taken by Licensee is not sufficient to ensure safe plant operation. We recommend that Licensee establish criteria in accordance with the guidelines as described in the above Section II.A.

I. Post trip review team to determine root cause and sequence of events.

FPL Res onse Part 8 of the revised procedure documents the cause of the trip.

Part 4 of the revised procedure documents the sequence of events.

NRC SE Concern

2. Near term corrective actions to remedy the cause of the trip.

FPL Res onse Part IO documents corrective actions for the cause of trip and any identified inadequate system performance listed in Part 9.

NRC SE Concern

3. Post trip review team has performed an analysis and determined that major safety systems responded to the event within specified limits.

FPL Res onse Plant and major safety system response is documented in Part 2 of procedure and evaluated in Parts 5, 6, 6, 7.

NRC SE Concern

4. Post trip review has not resulted in the discovery of a potential safety concern.

FPL Res onse Part l2 of procedure documents that the cause of trip has been identified and no unsafe conditions exist.

GRM I /002/2

NRC SE Concern

5. If any of the above items I through 4 are not met, the Facility Review Group (FRG) should review the conditions prior to restart.

FPL Res onse Part 12 requires FRG to review any trip for which cause is not determined prior to restart. The Plant Technical Specifications would prevent a restart should a safety concern, malfunction or inoperable major safety systems be discovered during the post trip review.

NRC SE Concern III.. C. Review recommended that pertinent data obtained during post-trip review be compared to applicable data provided in the FSAR to verify proper operation of the systems and equipment. Where possible, comparisons with previous similar events should be made.

FPL Res onse Part 7 of 'the revised procedure compares the trip with previous trips, the FSAR, CEN-l28; and documents any significant differences and resolution.

NRC SE Concern III. D. If any guidelines identified in SER II A are not met, FRG should conduct an independent assessment of the event.

FPL Res onse

'As provided in the response to III A item 5, this concern is addressed in Part 12 of the procedure and by Plant Technical Specifications.

NRC SE Concern I I I. E. Licensee did not provide specific plant safety assessment procedures which describe responsibilities and authorities of personnel involved with post-trip review activities, nor those procedures which contain methods and criteria for comparing actual plant response with expected plant response. We recommend that licensee's safety assessment program for unscheduled reactor trip should include all the information as described in the above Section II E.

FPL Res onse II E reiterates the requirements of IIA which are discussed in the response to III.A. and the Post trip review procedure.

GRMI /002/3