ML20135H482

Safety Evaluation Supporting Util 850719 post-trip Review Program Description & Procedures,Per Item 1.1 of Generic Ltr 83-28

ML20135H482
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	09/05/1985
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20135H481	List: ML20135H480 ML20135H482
References
GL-83-28, TAC-52809, NUDOCS 8509230630
Download: ML20135H482 (4)

Text

-

UNITED STATES

[

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O

-j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%...../

SAFETY EVALUATION FOR GENERIC LEIIER 83-28 ITEM 1.1 - POST-TRIP REVIEW (PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PROCEDURE DOCKET NO. 50-344 I.

INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip signal from the reactor protection system. This incident occurred during the plant start-up and the reactor was tripped manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiation of the automatic trip signal. The failure of the circuit breakers has been detennined to be related to the sticking of the under voltage 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 staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem unit incidents are reported in NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of 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 8,1983) all licensees of 1

operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to certain generic concerns. These concerns are categorized into 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 Infonnation Capability."

This safety evaluation (SE) addresses Action Item 1.1 only.

II.

REVIEW GUIDELINES The following review guidelines were developed after initial evaluation of various utility responses to Item 1.1 of Generic Letter 83-28, and incorporate the best features of these submittals. As such, these review i

guidelines in effect represent a " good practices" approach to post-trip review. We have reviewed the licensee's response to Item 1.1 against these j

guidelines:

h fD P

V

-2_

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.

The post-trip review team has detemined the root cauu and sequence of events resulting in the plant trip.

Near tem corrective actions have been taken to remedy the cause of the trip.

The post-trip review team has perfomed an analysis and detemined that the major safety systems responded to the event within specified 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, an independent assessment of the event is performed by the Plant Operations Review Consnittee (PORC), or another designated group with similar authority and experience.

B.

The responsibilities and authorities of the personnel who will perform the review and analysis should be well defined.

P 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 an 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 needed for the post-trip review.

I A second person on the review team should be an STA or should hold a relevant engineering degree with special transient analysis l

training.

The team leader and the STA (Engineer) should be raponsiu'le to concur on a decision / recommendation to restart the plant. A l

nonconcurrence from either of these persons should be sufficient to prevent restart until the trip has been reviewed by the PORC or equivalent organization.

L l

C.

The licensee or applicant should indicate that the plant response to the I

trip event will be evaluated and a detemination 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 FSAR.

r-i ;

An analysis of the sequence of events to verify the proper functioning of safety related and other important equipment. Where j

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.

E.

Each licensee or applicant should provide, in its submittal, copies of the plant procedures which contain the infomation required in Items A through D.

As a minimum, these should include the following:

The criteria for detemining the acceptability of restart l

The qualifications, responsibilities and authorities of key

]

personnel involved in the post-trip review process i

The methods and criteria for detemining whether the plant variables and system responses were within the limits as described j'

in the FSAR The criteria for detemining the need for an independent review.

III. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION i

By letters dated November 4,1983, and July 19, 1985, the licensee of Trojan Nuclear Plant provided infomation regarding its Post-Trip Review Program and Procedures. We have evaluated the licensee's program and procedures against i

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 i

acceptability of rest 5rt. We find that the licensee's criteria confom with tte guidelines as described in the Section II.A and, therefore, are l

acceptable.

l

\\

B.

The qualifications, responsibilities and authorities of the personnel

(

1 l

who will perfom the review and analysis have been clearly described.

We have reviewed the licensee's chain of connand for responsibility for post-trip review and evaluation, and find it acceptable.

C.

The licensee has described the methods and criteria for comparing the event infonnation with Technical Specifications or expected plant behavior. Based on our review, we find them to be acceptable.

D.

Thelicenseehasindicatedthatifanyoftheguidelines(asstatedin Section II.A of this SE) are not met, an independent assessment of the event will be required.

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 confom with the guidelines as described in the above i

Section II.A and D.

!w----

r=

-4 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 are acceptable for the Trojan Nuclear Plant.

Principal Contributor:

D. Shum, DHFS Date: September 5,1985 d

l

.