ML20215D832

SER Re Util 840229 & 860529 Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28, Items 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 Re post-maint Testing of safety-related components.Post-maint Testing Program Acceptable

ML20215D832
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	10/07/1986
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20215D649	List: ML20215D646 ML20215D832
References
GL-83-28, TAC-57382, NUDOCS 8610140320
Download: ML20215D832 (2)

Text

'

y ENCLOSURE 1-SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR GENERIC LtIIER 83-28, ITEMS 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS)

WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET h0: 50-482

1. INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1963, 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 prntection system. This incident occurred during the plant startup and the reactor was tripped manually by the operator about 20 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 (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 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: ( M Post-Trip Review, (2) Equipment Classification and Vendor Inter" m . (3) Post-maintenance Testing, and (4) Reactor Trip System Reliability Improvements.

The third action item, Post-maintenance Testing consists of Action Item 3.1, " Post-maintenance Testing (Reactor Trip System Components)" and ,

Action Item 3.2, " Post-maintenance Testing (All Other Safety-Related l Components)." This safety evaluation report (SER) addresses Action  :

Items 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 only.  !

II. REVIEW GUIDELINES 1

The following review guidelines were developed after initial evaluation of the various utility responses to Items 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 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-maintenance testing verification review. We have reviewed the licensee's response to Items 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 against these gutdelines: -

8610140320 861007 PDR ADOCK 05000482 P PDR 4

,_,.,m,-. .- , . - - - , , - - - . , - - - , , _ - _ . - , , -

f  :

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 post-maintenance operability testing of all non-reactor trip system safety-related components is required.

B. The licensee or applicant shall submit a statement verifying that vendor recommended test guidance 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 February 29, 1984, and May 29, 1986, the licensee provided infonnation regarding its post-maintenance testing verification of all safety-related system components other than reactor trip system components. We have reviewed the licensee's response against the review guidelines as described in Section II. A brief description of the licensee's response and the staff's evaluat*on of the msponse against each of the review guidelines is provided below:

A. The licensee stated that Technical Specifications pertaining to post-maintenance testing would be in place prior to fuel load along with the appropriate test and maintenance procedures. The NRC

' perfonned inspections prior to fuel load to assess the licensee's degree of confonnance to Generic Letters 83-28. The NRC inspector reviewed Technical Specification, administrative procedures, surveillance procedures, and maintenance procedums.

B. The licensee stated that Technical Specifications and procedures would be in place prior to fuel load for the checking of vendor and engineering recommendations. The NRC inspectors verified, prior to  !

fuel load, that all vendor-related reconnendations were completed for I the non-reactor trip system safety-related components and specified l functional testing was adequate.

Based on our review and the results of NRC inspections-documented in NRC Inspection Reports 50-482/84-44, dated January 23, 1985, and 504482/85-11, dated May 8, 1985, we conclude that the licensee's response to post-maintenance testing verification of all safety-related components other than reactor trip system components for the Wolf Creek Generating Station is acceptable.

Principal NRC Contributor: R. Mullikin  :

)

I

- - - - . , - _ - . , _ . _ . . _ , , -