HomeMy WebLinkAbout851185.tiff ;cot FEQU4
'o UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,D.C.20555
o
*...«" November 25, 1985
Ira
Docket No. 50-267
ttol tros
Mr. 0. R. Lee, Vice President °pee��r
Electric Production
Public Service Company of Colorado
P. 0. Box 840
Denver, Colorado 80201
SUBJECT: GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEMS 3.1 AND 3.2 - SAFETY EVALUATION FOR
POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING
Dear Mr. Lee:
We have completed our review of your submittal dated November 4, 1983 in
response to Generic Letter 83-28, Items 3.1 and 3.2 concerning post-maintenance
testing verification of the reactor trip system. Based on our review, we
conclude that your response to these issues in GL 83-28 is acceptable.
Our Safety Evaluation is enclosed for your information.
Sincerely,
Edward J. utcher, Acting Chief
Operating Reactors Branch No. 3
Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated
cc w/enclosure:
See next page
851185
�c� mnci 18I�
Mr. 0. R. Lee
Public Service Company of Colorado Fort St. Vrain
cc:
C. K. Millen Albert J. Hazle, Director
Senior Vice President Radiation Control Division
Public Service Company 4210 East 11th Avenue
of Colorado Denver, Colorado 80220
P. 0. Box 840
Denver, Colorado 80201 J. W. Gahm
Nuclear Production Manager
Mr. David Alberstein, 14/159A Public Service Company of Colorado
GA Technologies, Inc. P. 0. Box 368
P. 0. Box 840 Platteville, Colorado 80651
Denver, Colorado 80201
J. K. Fuller, Vice President
•
Public Service Company
of Colorado
P. 0. Box 840
Denver, Colorado 80201
Senior Resident Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
P. 0.Box 640
Platteville, Colorado 80651
Kelley, Stansfield & O'Donnell
Public Service Company Building
Room 900
550 15th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Regional Administrator, Region IV
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Executive Director
for Operations
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000
Arlington, Texas 76011
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County, Colorado
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Regional Representative
Radiation Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
1800 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80651
Wry '09` UNITED STATES
, 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
•
`w :< 3 WASHINGTON,O.C.20555
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
FORE ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
GENERIC LETTER 83-28, fIEMS 3.1 AND 3.2 - POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING
DOCKET NO. 50-267
•
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 (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 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, "Postmaintenance Testing (All Other Safety-Related
Components)." This safety evaluation report (SER) addresses Action
Item 3.1 and 3.2 only.
II. REVIEW GUIDELINES
The following review guidelines were developed after initial evaluation
of the various utility responses to items 3.1 and 3.2 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 postmaintenance testing verification review. We have reviewed
the licensee's response to items 3.1 and 3.2 against these guidelines:
-2-
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 postmaintenance 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 guidance has been reviewed, evaluated, and
where appropriate, included in the test and maintenance procedures
or the Technical Specifications.
III. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
By letter dated November 4, 1983, the licensee of Fort St. Vrain Nuclear
Generating Station provided information regarding its postmaintenance
testing verification of the reactor trip system components and all other
safety-related 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 evaluation of the
response against each of the review guidelines is provided below:
A. The licensee stated that postmaintenance testing requirements for
the reactor trip system components are identical to those for all
safety-related components. The licensee indicated that postmainte-
nance testing for all safety-related components is performed in
.4igardance with ainistrative procedures. These administrative
*csctdurea: require that the safety-related component be tested to
perform its safety function before being returned to service. Based
on our review, we find this statement acceptable.
B. The licensee stated that all vendor and engineering recommendations
received are reviewed for impact on test and maintenance
procedures. Appropriate test guidance is implemented into procedures
where required. We find this statement acceptable.
Based on our review, we conclude that the licensee's response to
postmaintenance testing verification of the reactor trip system and all
other safety-related components for the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating
Station is acceptable.
Hello