ML17347A256
| ML17347A256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17347A255 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8701300141 | |
| Download: ML17347A256 (5) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE SAFETY EVALUATION FOR GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3. 1. 1, 3. 1.2, 3.2. 1, and 3.2.2 TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 AND 4 DOCKET NOS. 50-250 AND 50-251 I.
Introduction In February
- 1983, the Salem Nuclear Power Station experienced two failures of the reactor trip system upon the receipt of trip signals.
These failures were attributed to Mestinghouse Type DB-50 reactor trip System (RTS) circuit breakers.
The fai lures at Salem on February 22 and 25,
- 1983, were believed to have been caused by a binding action within the undervoltage trip attachment (UYTA) located inside the breaker cubicle.
Due to problems with the circuit breakers at Salem and at other plants, NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 83-28, Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem Anticipated Transient Mithout Scram (ATMS) Events, dated July 8, 1983.
This letter described intermediate-term actions to be taken by licensees and applicants as a result of the Salem anticipated transient without scram events.
These actions were developed by the staff based on information contained in NUREG-1000, "Generic Implication of ATMS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant."
Actions to be performed included development of programs to provide for post-trip review, classification of equipment, vendor interface, post-maintenance
- testing, and RTS reliability improve-ments.
The letter requested responses from licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits.
The Generic Letter stated that for Action Items
- 3. 1.1,
- 3. 1.2, 3.2. 1, and 3.2.2 NRC Regional Offices would perform a post-implementation review and issue safety evaluations.
This report is the Regional Safety Evaluation of Florida Power and Light Company's (FPL) responses, dated November 8,
- 1983, and July 31,
- 1986, to GL 83-28 Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2 for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
II.
Review Guidance The licensee's responses were evaluated for compliance with the staff's positions delineated in GL 83-28 for Action Items 3. 1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2. 1, and 3.2.2.
The requirements of the above action items, as described in the Generic Letter, are paraphrased below:
- 3. 1 POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING (REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM COMPONENTS)
Position 1.
Licensees and applicants shall submit the results of their review of test and maintenance procedures and Technical Specifications to assure that post-maintenance operability testing of safety-related components in the RTS is required to be conducted and that the 8701300141 870114 PDR
- DOCK 05000250 P
testing demonstrates that the equipment is capable of performing its safety functions before being returned to service.
2.
Licensees and applicants shall submit the results of. their check of vendor and engineering recommendations to ensure that any appropriate test guidance is included in the test and maintenance p
d
<<hi Ilia, h
3.2 POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATEO COMPONENTS)
Position The following actions are applicable to post-maintenance testing:
1.
Licensees and applicants shall submit a report documenting the extending of test and maintenance procedures and Technical Specifications review to assure that post-maintenance operability testing of all safety-related equipment is required to be conducted and that the testing demonstrates that the equipment is capable of performing its safety functions before being returned'o service.
2.
Licensees and applicants shall submit the results of their check of vendor and engineering recommendations to ensure that any appropriate test guidance is included in the test and maintenance procedures or the Technical Specifications, where required.
III. Evaluation By letter dated November 8,
- 1983, FPL, the licensee of Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, provided information regarding their compliance to Sections
- 3. 1.1, 3. 1.2, 3.2. 1, 3.2.2,
- 4. 1, and 4.5. 1 of GL 83-28.
Initial review 4.5. 1 of the above response against the NRC staff positions described in the Generic Letter concluded that Items
- 3. 1.1, 4. 1 and 4.5. 1 were acceptable and met the intent of GL 83-28.
Items 4.1 and 4.5.1 were documented as acceptable and transmitted to the licensee in a letter dated May 1, 1986.
Item 3. 1. 1 required additional review.
The licensee's responses to Action Items
- 3. 1.2, 3.2. 1 and 3.2.2 were considered incomplete, thus requiring additional information to determine acceptability.
The need for this additional information was transmitted to the licensee in a letter dated April 30, 1986.
The licensee subsequently responded to this request for additional information in submittals dated June 19, 1986 and July 31, 1986.
In these letters, the licensee provided supplemental information on Action Items
- 3. 1.2, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2.
Me have evaluated those supplemental responses and have concluded that the licensee's responses to the above items are acceptable and meet the intent of GL 83-28.
Delineated below are the results of the required evaluations and a brief summary of the licensee's responses:
a
~
b.
Item 3.1.1, Review of Test and Maintenance Procedures and Technical Specifications (Reactor Trip System Components)
The licensee's response to this item is acceptable and meets the intent of GL 83-28.
The licensee confirmed that post-maintenance testing of reactor trip system components, is required, including the reactor trip
- breakers, and that retest requirements ensure that the component is operable upon completion of maintenance.
Item 3. 1.2 -
Check of Vendor and Engineering Recommendations for Testing and Maintenance (Reactor Trip System Components)
The licensee's response to this action is acceptable and meets the intent of GL 83-28.
The licensee indicated that in res'ponse to NRC inspection findings, reported in NRC Report 50-250, 251/85-40 and 85-32 the Reactor Protection System (RPS) is in the process of a complete design review as a Select System.
This re-review will ensure that engineering recommendations for testing and maintenance of the reactor trip system have been incorporated into test and maintenance procedures.
This re-review of the Reactor Trip System will be completed by June 1987.
co Item 3.2. 1 - Review of Test and Maintenance Procedures and Technical Specifications (All Other Safety-Related Components)
The licensee's response to this item is acceptable and meets the intent of GL 83-28.
The licensee stated in the response that maintenance procedures were reviewed to assure post-maintenance testing would be
- required, however, as a result of the NRC findings documented in Inspection Report 50-250, 251/85-40, and 85-32 a re-review is necessary.
In response to the NRC findings, the licensee has committed to perform a Select System Review.
The Select System Review will determine and ensure that testing which is specified in the Technical Specifications and post-maintenance procedures adequately verify component capability to perform all safety functions.
The licensee committed to complete this re-review by June 1987.
In addition, as part of the Analytical Based Preventive Maintenance Program the licensee corrroitted to re-review existing maintenance procedures to assure correct post-maintenance testing.
This re-review will be completed by December 1989.
d.
Item 3.2.2 -
Check of Vendor and Engineering Recommendations for Testing and Maintenance (All Other Safety-Related Components)
The licensee's response to this item is acceptable and meets the intent of GL 83-28.
The licensee has comnitted to update their vendor manuals by December
- 1986, and then perform a re-review of test and maintenance
/k
~
4 0
4)A%
~
'SJ di 0>>
~ 4' 1l procedures to ensure that appropriate vendor and engineering recommen-dations for testing and maintenance are incorporated.
A review of existing vendor information indicated that vendor manuals were not maintained, not up to date and not complete.
As a result, the licensee has a proaram in place that requires vendor manuals to be updated.
The re-review of the vendor manuals and enoineerino recommendations wi 11 be followed by incorporation of vendor and engineering recommendations for testing and maintenance into the test and maintenance procedures.
Engineering recommendations will be reviewed by the Select Systems Reviews.
IV.
Conclusion Based on our review, we conclude that the licensee's submittals to Action Items 3. 1. 1, 3. 1.2., 3.2.1, and 3.2.2 are acceptable and meet the intent of GL 83.28.