ML20151R223

Safety Evaluation Re Licensee 831105 & 850726 Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.1 & 3.1.2 Re Testing (Reactor Trip Sys Components).Responses Acceptable

ML20151R223
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	01/16/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20151R186	List: ML20151R183 ML20151R223
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8602050468
Download: ML20151R223 (2)

Text

.

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION CONCERNING GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEMS 3.1.1 AND 3.1.7 POSTMAINTENANCE TESTING (REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM COMPONENTS)

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE - UNIT 2 ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO: 50-368 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 startup 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 determined 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 Plant, an automatic trip signal was generated based on steam generator low-low level during plant startup. 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 (E00), 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 Commission (NRC) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8, 1983) all licensees of 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) Postmaintenance Testing, and (4) Reactor Trip System Reliability Improvements.

The third action item, Postmaintenance Testing consists of Action Item 3.1, "Postmaintenance Testing (Reactor Trip System Components)" and Action Item 3.2, Components)." "Postmaintenance This Safety EvaluationTesting)(All (SE addressesOther Safety-Related Action Items 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 only.

II. 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 items 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 against these guidelines:

8602050460 060116 PDR ADOCK 05000360 P PDR

=

_p.

A. The licensee or apolicant 'shall submit a statement indicatinq tha+

he has reviewed plant test procedures, maintenance proceduros and Technical Specifications to assure that oostmaintenance 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 recommended test quidance has been reviewed, evaluated, and where appropriate, included in the test and maintenance procedures or the Technical Specifications.

III. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION By letters dated November 5, 1983 and July 26, 1985, the licensee of Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 provided information regarding its post-maintenance testing verification of the reactor trip system components.

We have reviewed the licensee's response anainst the review quidelines as described in Section II. A brief description of the licensee's response and the staff's evaluation of the response against each of tha review quidelines is provided below:

A. The licensee stated that each channel of the Raattnr Protection System is tested in accordance with safety-related test procedures that functionally test the safety channels in accordance with the Technical Specifications. Operability testinq of the reactor trip system is conducted using the Safety-Related Reactor Protectinn System Channel Functional Test. A component listina of safety-related reactor trip system components has been developed and

.a review of maintenance and surveillance procedures did not require any chances. The staff finds this statement acceptable B. The licensee stated that methods of controlling, reviewing, ard incorporation of vendor information have been procedurally imolemented. The staff finds this statement acceptable.

Based on our review, we conclude that the licensee's response to postmaintenance testina verification of the reactor trip system components for the Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 is acceptable.

Principal NRC Contributor: J. Bess Dated: