ML20209E415
Text
"
H. soy
.f
[... 3
'o UNITED sTATrs
!^
~,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
g wAsMNGTON. D. C. 20096 s
- E..*
APR 3 0 g5 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, DL Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, OL FROM:
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Assistant Of rector for Safety Assessment, OL
SUBJECT:
SUBMITTAL OF ORAFT TERs FOR GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 1.2
Reference:
Memo from William H. Regan, Jr. to Albert Schwencer dated April 23,1985(enclosed)
The DRAFT TERs you have received in the referenced memo contain language that may be misinterpreted by some licensees. We have marked up the enclosed TER for Fort Calhoun to indicate where pen and ink changes should be made before transmitting the DRAFT TERs to the licensees.
In short, " review criteria" should be substituted for " requirements" where indicated by each project manager before transmitting. Legible pen and ink changes are suitable.
We have also enclosed a proposed sample letter for each project manager to use in issuing a DRAFT TERs. Each project manager should work with Tony Bournia (Load Project Manager for MPA 8-85) to schedule and conduct followup conferences. OMB clearance is not required since the infonnation needs for each plant vary.
hl '/
F
' f, Tielif fsshtant Director 4
Denn s
. Crutcf for Safety Assessmerft Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
A. Schwencer J. Kramer T. Bournia DL AC's R. Karsch
\\f?n70e78->4 (
J q
3 SAMPLE LETTER FOR ISSUANCE TO LICENSEES (FORT CALHOUN)
~
DocketNo(s).
LICENSEE ADDRESS Dear Mr.
SUBJECT:
ORAFT TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT (TER) FOR SALEM ATWS ITEM 1.2 (GENERIC LETTER 83-28)
Re:
(Fort Calhoun Station. Unit 1)
The staff has completed a preliminary review to assess the completeness and adequacy of licensee responses to Generic Letter 83-28 Item 1.2.
For the (Fort Calhoun Station), your response was found to be incomplete in (twol or the areas evaluated.
The enclosed TER provides a technical evaluation representing the staff's initial judgment of the areas evaluated. Pen and ink changes have been made to the TER by your project manager to make the wording consistent with our approach.
In order to preserve our present review schedule, we would appreciate your cooperation in obtaining additional information that will permit us to complete our review.
It would appear that the needed information on your facility could be obtained by telephone conference within one week of your receipt of the DRAFT TER. Your project manager will be working with you to arrange an acceptable time to conduct the necessary conference calls.
5:
Sincerely,
, Chief
~
Operating Reactors Branch No.
Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
DRAFT TER on Salem ATWS ltem 1.?
cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
v '
'~
..yf.
.. \\
UNITED states
- I y
.- (
NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSl2N f
., (
j wAsmwoTow. o. c. nosos
\\, M,/
gg3g
- e.,J en$
u 2N
\\
MEMORANDUM FOR: Albert Schwencer, Chief Licen' sing Branch =2 Nh'M'-
Division of Licensing v'
FROM:
William H. Regan, Jr., Acting Chief Human Factors Engineering Branch
[b U A s Division of Human Factors Safety 7,
SUBJECT:
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORTS (TERs) FOR 3
SALEM ATWS ITEM 1.2 (GENERIC LETTER 83-28) j Enclosed are 25 Salem ATWS Item 1.2 TERs covering the 37 units described in a memorandum from D. Beckham to F. Miraglia dated March 20, 1985 Additional information is required from the licensees so that we can provide closecut SERs to you by June 15, 1985. We have agreed that this information can be obtained by telecon.
Please arrange for each Project Manager to transmit his/her TER to the licensee on an expedited schedule, indicating that the technical evaluation represents the staff's initial judgment and that the staff believes that open issues can be resolved by telecon. We should allow each licensee approximately five (5) working days to review the TER and prepare for the telecon.
My staff would like to complete all calls in a one-week time period, starting approximately May 20, 1985. Each OL Project Manager should set up the telecon and include the Lead Project Manager, Mr. Bournial the reviewer, Mr. Kramer; our contractor, and the Resident Inspector, es The TERs were prepared by our consultants from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). The staff agrees with the technical content and conclusions of the contractor's reports.
Please advise us when 4
Contact:
J.Krarer x29853 tofifaV74' 99-u
m iBam l
Albert Schwencer, Chief 2
l the TERs have been sent to the licensees and when you have a preliminary schedule for the phone calls.
Individual PMs should arrange their calls for either a morning or afternoon time period. Mr. Bournia could then coordinate l
specific times, r
William. Regan, J ing Chief Human Factors Enginqerin ranch Division of Human F n tors afety
Enclosure:
As stated l
cc:
T. Sournia R. Liner (SAIC)
D.Gallagher(SAIC) l I
i l
ar-4 l
l I
j l
i
P FOREi,0R0 This report contains the technical evaluation of the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit I response to Generic Letter 83-28 (Required Actions Based or.
Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events), Jtem 1.2 " post Trip Review:
Data and Information Capabilities."
For the purposes of this evaluation, the review criteria, presented in part 2 of this report, were divided into five separate categories.
These are:
1.
The parameters monitored by the sequence of events and the time history recorders, 2.
Th'e performance characteristics of the sequence of events recorders, 3.
The performance characteristics of the time history recorders, 4
The data output format, and 5.
The long-term data retention capability for post-trip review
~ material.
All ava.ilable responses to Generic Letter 83-28 were evaluated. The plant for which this report is applicable was found to have adequately bLA A responded to, and met, categories 2, 3 and 4.
pdf.d (.f5' The report describes the specific methods used to determ e the cate-gorization of the responses to Generic Letter 83 28.
Since is evaluation report was intended to apply to more than one nuclear power lant specifics regarding how each plant met (or failed to meet) the rea"i e-+ are not e
presented.
Instead, the evaluation presents a categorization of the responses according to which categories ofri
~u are satisfied and which are not.
The evaluations are based on sp ific criteria (Section 2) derived from the requirements as stated in the neric letter.
(~
re s w cr;ta is a
b
f 3.
Evaluation The parameters identified in part 2 of this report as a part of the review criteria are those deemed necessary to perform an adequate post-trip review., The recording of these parameters on equipment that meets the guidelines of the review criteria will result in a source of information that can be used to determine the cause of the reactor trip and the plant response to the trip, including the responses of important plant systems.
The parameters identified in this submittal as being recorded by the sequence of events and time history recorders do not correspond to the parameters specified in part 2 of this report.
The information provided in the submittal indicates that the equipment used to monitor the digital and analog parameters meets the minimal requirements set forth in part 2 of this report. The sequence of events and analog time history recorders are powered from a non-interruptable poder supply. The monitoring characteristics are all within the guidelines of the -
review criteria.
The data and info,rmation recorded for use in the post trip review should be output in a format that allows for ease of identification and use of the data to meet the review criterion that calls for informatio{n ;
na readable and meaningful format. The information contained in this subm.
indicates that this requirement is met.
,i
(,,,f*l'M b The data and information used during a post-tri review should be e
retained as part of the plant files. This informatio could prove useful during future post-trip reviews. Therefore one :;;
va,,e presented in part 2 of this report is that information used during a post trip review be maintained in an accessible manner for the life of the plant.
Information contained within this submittal does not indicate that this criterion will be met 0
f'
\\
i e
r 4.
Conclusion t
. The information supplied in response to Generic Letter 83-28 inhicates that the curren,t post-trip review data and information capabilities are adequate in the following areas:
1.
The SOE recorders meet the minimum performance characteristics.
2.
The time history recorders meet the minimum performance character-istics.
3.
The recorded data is output in a readable and meaningful format.
The information supplied in response to Generic Letter 83-28 does not indicate that the post-trip review data and information capabilities are adequate in the following areas:
1.
As described in the submittal, sufficient analog and digitak parameters are not recorded for use in the post-trip review.
2.
The data retention procedures, as described in the submittal 1
not ensure that the information recorded for the post-trip review is maintained in an accessible manner for the life of the plant.
It is possible that the current data and information capabilit nuclear power plant are adequate to meet the intent of these yg::rntg r
P but were not completely described. Under these circumstances; the licensee should provide an updated, more complete, description to show in more detail the data and information capabilities at this nuclear power plant. If the information provided accurately represents all current data and information capabilties, then the licensee should either show that the current post trip review data and information capabilities are adequate to meet the intent of the criteria in part 2 of this report, or detail future modifications that would enable the licensee to meet the intent of the evaluation criteria.
h f
l' 3W PWR Parameters for Post Trip Review (circled parameters are not recorded)
SOE Time History
~
Recorder Recorder
- =
Parameter / Signal
- 6) "x Reactor Trip (1)
Safety Injection Containment Isolation (1) x Turbine Trip x
Control Rod Position (1)x Neutron Flux, Power x
K Containment Pressure Containment Radiation i
x Containment Sump Level (1)(3)
Primary System Pressure (Vessel Pressure, (1)x Pressurizer Pressure) x Primary System Temperature (1)
Pressurizer Level
}
(1)
Reactor Coolant Pump Status (1) x Primary System Flow i
Safety Inj.; Flow. Pump / Valve Status MSIV Position x
x Steam Generator Pressure (1)
Steam Generator Level (1)
Feedwater Flow (1) x Steam Flow Auxiliary Feedwater System; Flow, i
Pump /Value Status x
Diesel Generator Status x
PORY Position (1): Trip parameters; pressurizer or primary pressure is a trip parameter (depending on plant).
Acceptable recorder options are:Farameter may be monitore.1 by (a) reactor vessel pressure recorded on both an SOE and time history recorder, or (b) pressurizer pressure recorded on both an SOE and time history recorder.
(4): Acceptable recorder options are: (a) system flow recorded on an SOE equipment status recorded on an SOE recorder. recorder (b) sys i
lb
_