ML17254A620
| ML17254A620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17254A619 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8511010309 | |
| Download: ML17254A620 (6) | |
Text
Enclosure 1
SAFETY EVALUATION FOR GENERIC LE TER 83-N 1.T - POST-TRIP RV M
RGR SR U
NN 2222~-244 I.
INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant (SNPP) failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip signal from the reactor protection system.
This incident occurred during plant start-up and the reactor was tripped manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiation of the automatic trip signal.
Failure of the circuit breakers has been determined to be related to the sticking of the under voltage trip attachment.
On February 22, 1983, an automatic trip occurred during the start-up of SNPP, Unit 1, as the result of steam generato~
low-low level.
In this case, the reactor was tripped manuaTly by the operator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip.
On February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director for Operations directed the staff to investigate and report on the generic implications of these occurrences.
The results of this staff investigation are reported fn NUREG-1000, "Generic Implfcations of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant."
As a result of this investigation, the Coomfssfon requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8, 1983$. oil ))ceggsl,es..of operating react.ors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to certain generic concerns.
These concerns are categorized into the following four areas:
(1)
Post-Trip Review, (2)
Equipment Classification and Vendor Interface, (3)
Post-Maintenance
- Testing, and (4)
Reactor Trip System Reliability Improvements.
The first action item, Post-Trip Review, consists of Action Item 1.1, "Program Description and Procedure" and Action Item 1.2, "Data and Information Capability."
This evaluation addresses Action Item 1.1 only.
85il0i0309 85i025 PDR AOOCK 05060244 P
e I
P
~
~
4 4
II.
REVIEW GUIDELINES The following review guidelines were developed after initial evaluation of several utility responses to Item l.l of Generic Letter 83-28, and incoi porate the best features of these submittals.
Therefore, these review guidelines effectively represent a "good practices" approach to post-trip review.
We have reviewed the licensee's response to Item 1. 1 against these guidelines:
v A.
The licensee or applicant should have systematic safety assessment procedures established that will ensure that the following restart criteria are met before restart is authorized.
k The post-trip review team has determined the root cause and sequence of events resulting in the plant trip.
Near term corrective actions have been taken to remedy the cause of the trip.
The post-trip review team has performed an analysis and, determined that the major safety systems r'esponded to 'tlie event within
'pecified limits of the primary system parameters.
The post-trip review has not resulted in the discovery of a potential safety concern (e.g., the root cause of the event occurs with a frequency significantly larger than expected).
If any of the above restart criteria are not met, then an independent assessment of the event is performed by the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC), or another designated group with similar authority and experience.
B.
The responsibilities and authorities of the personnel who'vill perform the review and analysis should be well defined.
The post-trip review team leader should be a member of plant management at the shift supervisor level or above and should hold or should'have held a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license on the plant.
The team leader should be charged with overall responsibility for directing the post-trip review, including data gathering and data assessment and"he/she should have the necessary authority to obtain all
.personnel and data need fot the post-trip review.
A second person on the review team should be a Shift Technical Advisor or 'should hold a relevant engineering degree with special transient analysis training.
The team leader and the STA should be responsible to concur on a decision/recommendation to restart the plant.
A nonconcurrence from either of these persons should be sufficient to prevent restart until the trip has been reviewed by the PORC or equivalent organization.
C.
The licensee or applicant should indicate that the plant response to the trip event will be evaluated and a determination made as to whether the plant response was within acceptable limits.
The evaluation should include:
A verification of the proper operation of plant systems and equipment by comparison of the pertinent data obtained during the post-trip review to the applicable data provided in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
An analysis of the sequence of events to verify the-proper functioning of safety related and other important equipment.
Where
- possible, comparisons with previous similar events should be made.
D.
The licensee or applicant should have procedures to ensure that all physical evidence necessary for an independent assessment is preserved.
'I E.
Each licensee or applicant should provide in its submittal, copies of the plant procedures which contain the information required in Items A
through D.
As a.minimum, these should include the following:
Ttfe criteria.for determining the acceptability of restart The qualifications, responsibilities and authorities of key personnel involved in the post-trip review process The methods and criteria for determining whether the plant variables and system responses were within the limits as described in the FSAR The criteria for determining the need for an independent review.
III.
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION By letters dated November 4, 1983, and September 3, 1985, the licensee of R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Plant provided information regarding its Post-Trip Review Program and Procedures.
We have evaluated the licensee's program and procedures against the review guidelines developed as described in Section II-.
A brief description of the licensee's response and the staff's evaluation of the response against each of the review guidelines is provided below:
A.
The licensee has established the criteria for determining the acceptability of restart.
We find that the licensee's criteria conform with the guidelines as described in Section II.A and, therefore, are acceptable.
B.
The qualifications, responsibilities and authorities of the personnel who will perform the review and analysis have been clearly described.
We have reviewed the licensee's chain of command for responsibility for post-trip review and evaluation, and find it acceptable. "
The licensee has addressed the methods and criteria for comparing the event information with known or expected plant behavior.
Based on. our review, we find th'em acceptable.
D.
The licensee has indicated that independent assessment conducted by the PORC is required for all events.
In addition, the licensee has established procedures to ensure that all physical evidence necessary for an independent assessment is preserved.
We find that these actions taken by the licensee conform with the guidelines as described in Sections II.A and D.
E.
The licensee has provided for our review a systematic safety assessment program to assess unscheduled reactor trips.
Based on our review, we find that this program is acceptable.
Based on our review, we conclude that the licensee's Post-Trip Review Program and Procedures for R. E. Ginna Nuclear Plant are acceptable.
IV.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributor:
D. Shum Dated:
October 25, I'985