ML20140C576

Safety Evaluation Supporting 831104 Response to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.1 & 3.1.2 Concerning post-maint Testing Verification of Reactor Trip Sys Components

ML20140C576
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	01/17/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20140C573	List: ML20140C569 ML20140C576
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8601280356
Download: ML20140C576 (2)

Text

[ 'o, 8 ,

o UNITED STATES g *, .t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR RFACTOR REG GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 3.1 - POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING VERIFICATION (REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM COMPONENTS)

COOPER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO: 50-298

!. INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the signal from the reactor protection system. Salem Nuclear Power the plant startup and the reactor was tripped manually by the operatorTh about 30 seconds after the initiation of the automatic trip signal. The failure ofofthe sticking the circuit under breakers voltage has been determined to be related trip attachment. to t Prior to this incident, on February 22, 1983, at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Plant, an automa* ic plant startup. trip signal was generated based on steam generator low-low le operator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip.In this case Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO), directed the staff to investigate and report on the genericPlant.

Power implications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear 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 Commission Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8,1983) all licens(NRC) requested (by reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holoers ofees of operating construction pennits to respond to certain generic concerns. These concerns are categorized into four areas: (1) Post-TripReview.

(2) Equi Testing,pment Classification and Vendar Interface. (3)Postmaintenance and(4)ReactorTripSystemReliabilityImprovements.

The third action item, Postmaintenance Testing consists of Action item 3.1, "Postmaintenance Testing (Reactor Trip System Components)" and Action item 3.2, "Postmaintenance Testing (All Othe'r Safety-Related Components)." This safety evaluation report (SER) addresses Action item 3.1 only, including Items 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

!!. _ REVIEW GUIDELINES The following review guidelines were developed after initial evaluation of the various utility responses to item 3.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 and incorporate the best features of these submittals. As such, these review guidelines in effect represent a " good practices" approach to postmaintenance testing verification review. We have reviewed the licensee's response to item 3.1 against these guidelines:

0601200356 060117 DR ADOCK 0500 .]G

A.

The licensee or applicant shall submit a statement indicating that

) he has reviewed plant test procedures, maintenance procedures and Technical Specifications to assure that postraintenance operability testing of safety-related components in the reactor trip system is required to be conducted.

B.

The licensee or applicant shall submit a statement verifying that vendor recomended test guidance has been reviewed, evaluated, and where appropriate, included in the test and maintenance procedures or the Technical Specifications.

!!!. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

By letter dated November 4,1983, the licensee of Cooper Nuclear Station provided information regarding its Postmaintenance Testing Verification 1

of the Reactor Trip System.. Components. We have reviewed the licensee's response against the review guidelines as described in Section II. A i

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 stated that a general review of postmaintenance work i requests (MWRs) has been completed to determine if appropriate postmaintenance testing requirements were identified, performed and documented. To further indicate the caerability of the RPS, the licensee has procedures available whic1 permits scram-time testing

' of individual rod. drives. We find that the licensee's review of developed procedures and postmaintenance operability testing

' perfomed under MWRs are acceptable for verification of the reactor trip system operability.

B. The licensee stated that surveillance procedures and the testing portion of maintenance procedures are periodically reviewed to determine if Vendor changes are required. During the revi2w l process, all relevant information is evaluated to determine if modification to procedures are warranted. Based on our review, we j find this statement acceptable, i

i Based on our review, we conclude that the licensee's response to I Postmaintenance Testing Verification of the Reactor Trip System Components for the Cooper Nuclear Station is acceptable.

Principal Contributor: J. Bess

! Dated: January 17, 1986 I

J

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _