ML17083B921
| ML17083B921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1987 |
| From: | Trammell C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Shiffer J PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, TAC-53908, NUDOCS 8709100440 | |
| Download: ML17083B921 (10) | |
Text
September 4,
1987 Docket Nos.:
50-275 and 50-323 Mr. J.
D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation c/o Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, Cal ifornia 94106
Dear Mr. Shiffer:
SUBJECT:
GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 4.2 (TAC NO. 53908)
DISTRIBUTION NRC 8 Local PDRs PD85 Plant File GHolahan JLee CTrammell OGC-Bethesda EJordan JPartlow ACRS(10)
A., 7 oa(s+.~
Item 4.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 requires licensees or applicants to describe their preventative maintenance and surveillance program for ensuring reliable reactor trip breaker operation.
Parts 3 and 4 of Item 4.2 pertain to life testing of an acceptable sample size of the breakers, and periodic replacement of the breakers or components consistent with demonstrated life cycles.
PGSE submitted responses to Item 4.2 (Parts 384) by letters dated July 18, 1986 and November 20, 1986.
Our review of these responses has led to the enclosed Request for Additional Information.
Your response is requested within 60 days of your receipt of this letter.
Please contact us if you should need any clarification of this request.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Original signed by Charles M. Trammell, Project Manager Project Directorate V
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects cc w/enclosure:
See next page 0
D5 DR D5 rammell:cd GP
'hton 9/
/87 9igi87 OFF CIAL RECORD COPY 8>09XOO440 8Va904 R PDR ADOCK 05000275 P
'DR
(
~
'll
'k
'll dl r
'f r
I P
e N
tl
Mr. J.
D. Shiffer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon CC:
Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas
& Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Ms. Sandra A. Silver 660 Granite Creek Road Santa Cruz, California 95065 Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. 0.
Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Managing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. 0.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Mr. Leland M. Gustafson, Manager Federal Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1726 M Street,'.
W.
Washington, DC 20036-4502 Dian M. Grueneich, Esq.
Edwin F. Lowry, Esq.
Grueneich
& Lowry 380 Hayes Street Suite 4
San Ft ancisco, California 94102 NRC Resident Inspector Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Mr. Dick Blakenburg Editor & Co-Publisher South County Publishing Company P. 0. Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Bruce Norton, Esq.
c/o Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Dr. R. B. Ferguson Sierra Club - Santa Lucia Chapter Rocky Canyon Star Route Creston, California 93432 Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Room 220 County Courthouse Annex San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Director Energy Facilities Siting Division Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission 1516 9th Street Sacramento, California 95814 Ms. Jacquelyn Wheeler 2455 Leona Street San Luis Obispo, California 93400
I Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company
-. 2-Diablo Canyon CC:
Ms. Laurie McDermott, Coordinator Consumers Organized for Defense of Environmental Safety 731 Pacific Street, Suite 42 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Joseph
- 0. Ward, Chief Radiological Health Branch State Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Office Building P8 Sacramento, California 95814 Regional Administrator, Region V
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450'aria Lane Suite 210 walnut Creek, Cali fornia 94596 Ms. Nancy Culver 192 Luneta Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 President California Public Utilities Commission California State Building 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Michael M. Strumwasser, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorney General State of California Department of Justice 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Room 800 Los Angeles, California 90010
RE UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEN 83-28 DI BL C
NY N NUCLEAR POWER PL NT UNITS 1
2 Item 4.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 requires licensees or applicants to describe their preventative maintenance and surveillance program for ensuring reliable reactor trip breaker (RTB) operation.
Parts 3 and 4 of Item 4.2 pertain to life testing of an acceptable sample size of the breakers, and periodic replacement of the breakers or components consistent with demonstrated life cycles.
The licensee submitted responses to Item 4.2 (Parts 354) by letters dated July 18, 1986 and November 20, 1986.
In their November 20, 1986 response, the licensee referenced WCAP-10852 "Report of the DB-50 Reactor Trip Breaker Shunt and Undervoltage Trip Attachments Life Cycle Tests."
WCAP-10852 addresses only cyclic testing on RTB trip attachments.
It neither addresses life qualification of the RTBs nor noncyclic life-limiting or performance-degrading phenomena (i.e., aging) for the trip attachments.
Therefore, WCAP-10852 does not constitute an acceptable response to the concern of the generic letter, In their November 20, 1986 response, the licensee also referenced WCAP-8687, Supp.
2-E62B, Addendum 1, Rev-0 4/86; stating that the report provides details on the equipment qualification (aging and seismic testing) for the shunt trip attachment.
This report pertains to the shunt trip attachment only, with limited thermal and mechanical aging.
If it can be demonstrated that the qualified life of the RTB exceeds the life of the plant, then the specific qualified life need not be identified.
In a practical
- sense, the intent of the life testinq requirement of the generic letter would be satisfied by demonstrating that the qualified life of the breaker (for the tripping function) exceeds the expected use projected to the next refueling.
Cycle testing by the various owners groups, although it does not consider the effects of aging, may provide evidence to support continued use of the RTBs for one additional refueling cycle, provided that the individual breaker has not shown a sign of degradation based on the licensee's Parametric Trend Monitoring Program.
In this approach, the actual qualified life is not specifically identi-fied, but is only demonstrated to be adequate.
Ongoing life testing is an acceptable alternative to formal life testing for the purpose of establishing a specific qualified life for RTBs.
Ongoing life testing will demonstrate that the qualified life, though not specifically known, is longer (in terms of cycles and time) than the integrated service that wi 11 be accumulated through the next refueling interval.
The description of an ongoing qualification program should include the following:
( I) an estimate of the number of demands between refueling outages to which the RTB must respond, and the basis for the estimate.
(2) a definition of relevant, end-of-life related failures (Note that random failures occurring during the constant hazard rate portion of the "bathtub curve" (plot of failure rate vs. time) are not relevant to a life test.
The licensee should (a) identify the possible failure modes, (b) categorize each failure mode as an end-of-life type or not, and (c) present a general methodology for categorizing future failure modes that may not be included in (a).
(3) the action to be taken upon any failure.
The staff finds that the licensee has not coranitted to a life testing program.
The licensee should qualify their breakers by (a) actual life testing of the
- breakers, including aging, on an acceptable sample size or (b) establishing an ongoing life testing program.
If the first alternative is selected, the-licensee should present the results of the life testing to the staff for review. If the second alternative is selected, the licensee should describe their ongoing life testing program, including the three items identified above.
The licensee should also present for staff review a replacement program for the breaker and breaker components based on the results of their life qualification program.
For ongoing qualification, the licensee should describe how the ongoing qualification results will be used to establish replacement cycles and times.
0 J
/