ML20197J689

Forwards SER & SALP Evaluation Supporting Licensee 831118 Response to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 1.1, Post-Trip Review

ML20197J689
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	05/03/1985
From:	Beckham D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-0798, CON-WNP-798 GL-83-28, TAC-52517, NUDOCS 8505160034
Download: ML20197J689 (9)

Text

• '

5([-SG'J

/

llay 3,1985 LQB Reading DHFS Reading (2)

HBooher LCrocker DShum MEMORAflDUF1 FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM: Don H. Beckham, Acting Deputy Director Division of Human Factors Safety

SUBJECT:

SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT F0PJ;1 L 2 GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 1.1 (POST-TP.IP REVIEW)

(TAC No. 52517)

By letter dated November 18, 1983, the licensee of Washington Nuclear Project No. 2 responded to Generic Letter 83-23 with regard to required actions based on generic implications of Salem ATWS events. The enclosed SER and SALP were prepared by the Licensee Qualifications Branch based upon TER input from its contractor, Sciance Applications International Corporation (SAI),

af ter havinc reviewed the applicable portions of the licensee's response to Generic Letter 83-28.

Based on our review, we conclude that the licensee's Post-Trip R'eview Program and Procedures for Washington Nuclear Pro,iect No. 2 are acceptable.

This review has been conducted by D. Shum (x24906) and SA'. There are no known dissenting professional opinions on this matter.

.DQin:1 Cin:ed by Don H. Beckham, Actinn Deputy Director Diyision of Human Factors Safety

Enclosures:

1. Safety Evaluation

2. SALP Evaluation cc: A. Bournia .

A. Schwencer J. Bradfule G. Holahan b9 DW:DHFS8:f1EN0 FOR NOVAK-WNP2

~n r omce> . .LQ B .... . . . . . ..l.03..[O.. ... ...LO.S. ...$. . . . 0.dS.;.MO..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........---......-c sunuwe> ..DShum.mes... ..LCroda.r .... ..).iB.o.o.tter........ ..J1Bac1Aam..... ....................... ....................... .....................:

are > . 5L.t../.Bk.. . . 5L.I.L8.5........ .. 9LM.6.5... .... ..51.3L6.5........ ...................... ....................... .......................

nne ronu m no em sncu em OFFLCl/mL R ECOR D COPY u=c e-:s

flay 3,1985 DISTRIBUTI0il Central Files LQB Reading DHFS Reading (2)

HBooher LCrocker DShum ME"0RAfDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM: Don H. Beckham, Acting Deputy Director Division of Human Factors Safety

SUBJECT:

SAFETY EVALUATI0fl REPORT F0P WNP-2 GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 1.1 (POST-TRIP REVIEW)

(TAC No. 52517)

By letter dated November 18, 1983, the licensee of Washington Nuclear Project No. 2 responded to Generic Letter 83-28 with regard to required actions based on generic implications of Salem ATWS events. The enclosed SER and SALP were prepared by the Licensee Qualificutions Branch based upon TER input from its contractor, Science Applications International Corporation (SAI),

after having reviewed the applicable portions of the licensee's resp.onse to Generic Letter 83-28.

Based on our review, we conclude that the licensee's Post-Trip Review Prograr and Procedures fnr Washingto') Nuclear Project No. 2 are acceptable.

This review has been conducted by D. Shum (x24906) and SAI. There are no known dissenting professional opinions on this matter.

,0riginal Sipied by Don H. Beckham, Actinn Deputy Director Division of Human Factors Safety

Enclosures:

1. Safety Evaluation

2. SALP Evaluation cc: A. Bournia A. Schwencer J. Bradfule G. Holahan DW:DHFS8: MEMO FOR NOVAK-WNP2 t e s t)  ?

n~ -

cmce> . .LQ B ...... .... .w. LQ3..,...

.. . .. .. .L03.. .... . . . . . . . . ...attE.S.:.Ma.....

.. . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - - - . . . . . - . . ~ . . . . . . - - . . . . - - - - - - -

sunuce > ..QShum;.mes.... ..LCrrcin . . ..HEncher....... ...Dae.c.k.b.an ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . - . . . . . . . - - . - - ..-------~c w, y ..W..i.l.a&.... ... ..hL..I.LR1....... ...V.MB.5........ .. 5L3 B.5........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - ...................... . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - ~ . -

sac roar sin 00-80) NROM Cu0 OFFRCB8L RECORD COPY wemma

Enclosure 1 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 1.1 - POST-TRIP REVIEW (PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PROCEDURE)

' WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 DOCKET NO.: 50-397

1. 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 a'utomatic 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 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 (ED0), directed the staff to investigate and report on the generic implications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem f;uclear 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) Post-Maintenance Testing, and (4) Reactor Trip System Reliability Improvements.

The first action item, Pcst-Trip Review, consists of Action Item 1.1,

" Program Description and Procedure" and Action Item 1.2. " Data and Information Capability." This safety evaluation report (SER) addresses Action Item 1.1 only.

II. REVIEW GUIDELINES The following review guidelines were developed after initial evaluation of the various utility responses to Item 1.1 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 post-trip review. We have reviewed the licensee's response to Item 1.1 against these guidelines:

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 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 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, 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.

4

B. The responsibilities and authorities of the personnel who will 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 an SR0 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.

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

The team leader and the STA (Engineer) 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 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.

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:

The 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 letter dated November 18, 1983, the licensee of Washington Nuclear Project

! No. 2, 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:

I A. The licensee has established the criteria for determining the acceptability of restart. Based on our review, we find that the i licensee's criteria conform to the guidelines as described in the above Section II.A and, therefore, are acceptable.

L

.s.

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.

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

D. The licensee has established criteria for determining the need for independent assessment of an event. Based on our review, we find them acceptable. In addition, the licensee has established procedures to ensure that all physical evidence necessary for an independent assessment is preserved. We find that this action to be taken by the licensee conforms with the guidelines as described in the above 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 Washington Nuclear Project No. 2, are acceptable.

O l

Enclosure 2 SALP EVALUATION WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT N0. 2 DOCKET NO.: 50-397 GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 1.1, POST TRIP REVIEW A. Functional Areas: Licensing Activities - Generic Letter 83-28 Item 1.1, Post Trip Review -

1. Management involvement in assuring quality Based on our review of the licensee's response to Generic Letter 83-28, we find that the licensee will have an effective systematic assessment procedure to assess unscheduled reactor trips.

Rating: Category 2

2. Approach to resolution of technical issues from a safety standpoint Rating: N/A

3. Responsive to NRC initiatives Based on our review, we find that the licensee is responsive to NRC initiatives.

Rating: Category 2

~

i e

-2

4. Staffing Rating: N/A

5. Reporting and analysis of reportable events Rating: N/A

6. Training and qualification effectiveness Rating: N/A

7. Overall Rating for Licensing Activity Functional Areas: Category 2 i

l i

l l