ML20132D207

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3, Davis-Besse Unit 1

ML20132D207
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	06/30/1985
From:	Haroldsen R EG&G, INC.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20132D209	List: ML20132D207 ML20133Q037 ML20133Q044
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 GL-83-28, TAC-52993, TAC-53831, NUDOCS 8507120512
Download: ML20132D207 (7)

Text

-

y _- _ , -_-

f .

?

1 6

i .

1 i

t ,

> CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 DAVIS _- BESSE UNIT 1 j -

i

[,

r 1 .. R. Haroldsen Published June 1985 1

1 I EG&G Idaho Inc.

Idaho Falls. Idaho 83415 I.

I ' Prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Comission ~

Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN NO. 06001 l

I

(' b\ k^

u . _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ .

q@ .

,..,.-.~,.. .. .. .- . .

1 1

ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho Inc. report provides a review of the submittals for the Davis Besse nuclear plant for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 I items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.

j . i I FOREWORD ,

l This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating

! licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter./83-28

• Required Actions based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This work is

... conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Re~gulatory Connission. Office of Nuclear  :

Reactor Regulation. Division of System Integration by E6&G Idaho Inc., NRC .

i- Licensing Support Section. =

i The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the l

i auhorization. B&R 20-19-19-11-3 FIN NO. 06001.

i l

i i

i 1

i Docket No. 50-346 i TAC Nos. 52993 and 53831 .

em i

S

,,,-,,,,,-,.mn.-n,---w. . - ,ew--,-v ~.,n n , , ,,vw-~,-~-----,-----,v,--, ,.w - -<-~*ww --r-m,.n...--,,nm~rww w-ev,= m, 4.,, n em m m _ m w.= ,, e ,w we n

- _. _. . ~ . . . _ . ._ -__s, ,

CONTENTS l ABSTRACT .............................................................. 11 FOREWORD .............................................................. 11

1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................

1

2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS .............................................. ,

1

3. GROUP REVIEW RESULTS ............................................. 2

4. REVIEW RESULTS FOR THE DAVIS BESSE 1 PLANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

5. REVIEW CONCLUSIONS ........................'....................... 3 1

.. 6. REFERENCES ..'...............'...................................... 4 W

O.

S e

,i e

b

+

mm l

i i

,: ,-.. -_ m- .

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 ,

DAVIS - BESSE - 1

1. INTRODUCTION I

i On .luly 8, 1983 Generic Letter No. 83-28 was issued by .

D. 6. Eisenhut, Director of the Division of Licensing Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for operating licensees, and holders of construction, permits. This letter.

included required actions based on generic implications of the Salem ATWS

- events. These requirements have b'een published in Volume 2 of NUREG-1000

' Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant".2 1

Reviews of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 are being conducted on groups of

)

similar reactor plants'for which a concern identified for any plant in the

group is assumed to be potentially significant for all of the plants in the group. The Davis Besse plant, however, is a unique late model operating I

BW plant. It is not sufficiently similar to earlier B W plants for the i purpose of this review to be included in any larger group. The reactor trip system differs considerably from that of the earlier plants.

i

! This report documents the EG66 Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals from the Davis-Besse Unit 1 plant for conformance to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3

) of Generic Letter 83-28.

i The submittals from the Toledo Edison Company (licensee for the l Davis Besse p1' ant) and the B&W Owners Group utilized in this evaluation are referenced in Section 6 of this report.

l r

1 -

1

--r,- - - - -- - .--- -- -,,_-_.,,,_.,,_.-.-n,,...___-,,. ,- ..---.-n-.,...__,,-...-.-,,_,.,-.+,--a.,.---,-- ._.-.,.,,,,--,- . g. , _ ,_. - -

. _ , . = . .

l

2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS i

' Item 3.1.3 (Post-Maintenance Testing of Reactor Trip System -

Components) requires licensees and applicants to identify, if applicable.

any post-maintenance test requirements in existing technical spec.ifications which can be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety.- ,

ji Item 3.2.3 extends this same requirement to include all other safety-related components. Any proposed technical specification changes resulting from this action shall receive a pre splementation review by NRC.

s 3. GROUP REVIEW RESULTS 3 The B&W Owners Group submitted a response d'ted a November 9, 1983 to -

Generic Letter 83-28.3 This response states that the owners group after j considerable review and discussion concluded that plant-specific differences precluded a generic program for resolving items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.

1l

, -- The relevant submittals from the Licensee were reviewed to determine compliance with these two items. First. the submittals were reviewed to determine if these two items were specifically addressed. Second, the submittals were checked to determine if any post-maintenance test items

[ .specified by the technical specifications were identified that were

? ' suspected to degrade rather than enhance safety. Last, the submittals were .

reviewed for evidence of special conditions or significant information relative to the two items.

m.

' 4. REVIEW RESULTS FOR THE DAVIS BESSE 1 PLANT The Licensees response of November 7, 1983* states that no L

I post-maintenance test requirements of Reactor Trip System Components have

! been identified that degrade safety. This statement provides a direct response to item 3.1.3. The submittal also addressed item 3.2.3 with a

' statement indicating that a p'rogram was being developed for reviewing this i . item in conjunction with item 2.2.2 but no conclusions were prese'hted, i

2 0..__________.._._. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _. _ .._ . _ ____ _. _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _

A subsequent Licensee response dated July 31, 1984' reported additional review was underway and that an additional response would be submitted by January 18, 1985. The Licensee did submit a response on the

~

promised date which reported that review was continuing on item 3.2 and other items but there is no specific response to items 3.1.3 or 3.2.3 in the submittal. '

i 5. REVIEW CONCLUSIONS

• The Licensee statement that no post-apinten,ance test requirements of the Reactor Trip System Components have been identified that degrade safety adequately meets the requirements of items 3.1.3 and is acceptable. The Licensee has addressed item 3.2.3 but has not stated if any -

pcst-amintenance test requirements in existing technical specifications ,

that degrade safety have been identified." The response is therefore not adequate or acceptable for items 3.2.3. This item will be held open pending reciept and assessment of information responsive to the ccncern.

i f

?

4 I

l N

9 l

3

? .

6. REFERENCES

1. NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating License, and Holders of Construction Permits,

" Required Actions 8ased on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events

- (Generic Letter 83-28)", July 8, 1983.

2. Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, NUREG-1000, Volume 1. April 1983; Volume 2. July 1983.

3. B&W Owners Group Response to Generic Letter 83-28 by 86W Dwners Group ATWS Coassittee, November 4,1983.

4. Letter, R. P. Crouse, Toledo Edison Company 'to D. G. Eisenhut. NRC, November 7, 1983.

5. Letter, R. P. Crouse Toledo. Edison to J. F. Stolz, NRC, July 13, 1984.

Letter, R. P. Crouse, Toledo Edison to J. F. Stolz, NRC, 6.

December 2, 1984. ,

7. Letter, R. P. Crouse. Toledo Edison -to J. F.'Stolz, NRC, January 18, 1985.,

e*

l 4

- - - - _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _