ML20134J509

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3, LaSalle County Station & WPPSS-2

ML20134J509
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia, LaSalle, 05000000
Issue date:	06/30/1985
From:	Vanderbeek R EG&G, INC.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML17278A375	List: ML20134J509
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 GL-83-28, TAC-53012, TAC-53850, TAC-53851, TAC-53896, TAC-57804, NUDOCS 8508290381
Download: ML20134J509 (9)

Text

- ._ . - _ - _

Enclosure 4

e i

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, WNP-2 R. VanderBeek Published June 1985 EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingtc.1, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761D01570 FIN No. 06001

\

l l

~

e ABSTRACT

~

This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals for several nuclear plants for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3. The specific plants reviewed were selected as a group because of similarity in type and appitcability of the review items. The group includes the following plants:

plant Docket Number TAC Numbers LaSalle 1 50-373 53012, 53850 LaSalle 2 50-374 53851 WNP-2 50-397 53896 FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 " Required Actions based en Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This work is conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of System Integration by EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRC Licensing Support Section.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN No. D6001.

I i

11 I

1

i CONTENTS 11 ABSTRACT ..............................................................

FOREWORD .............................................................. 11 I

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

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

3. G ROU P REV I EW R ES U LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

4. REVIEW RESULTS FOR LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 . . . ... 5 4.1 5 Evaluati,on .................................................

4.2 Conclusion ................................................. 5

5. REVI EW RESU LTS FO R WNP-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1 Evaluation ................................................. 6 5.2 Conclusion ................................................. 6

6. GROUP CONCLUSION ................................................. 7

7. REFERENCES ....................................................... 8 TABLE 1 .......................................................... 4 4

111 1

i

)

I l

~.

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3

' LA SALLE COUNTY STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, WNP-2

1. INTRODUCTION On July 8, 1983, Generic Letter No. 83-28 was issued by D. G. Eisenhut, Director of the Division of Licensing, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for operating licenses, and holoers of construction permits. This letter included required actions baseo on generic implications of the Salem ATWS events. These requirements have been published in Volume 2 of NUREG-1000,

" Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant".2 Tnis report documents the EG&G Idano, Inc. review of the submittals for the LaSalle Count Station Unit Nos 1 and 2 and WNP-2 plants for conformance to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28.

The submittals from the licensees utilized in these evaluations are referenceo in section 7 of this report.

These review results are applicable to the group of nuclear plants previously ioentified because of their similarity. These plants are similar in the following respects.

1. They are operating GE-BWR reactors

2. They are 1969 (Model 5) reactors

3. They utilize two class lE Power System Trains

4. They use relay logic in the Reactor Trip Systems'.

An item of concern identified for any one of these plants is assumed to be potentially significant for all of the plants in the group.

t e

a \

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 for the Reactor Trip System (RTS) in existing technical specifications which can be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety. 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-implementation review by NRC.

3. GROUP REVIEW RESULTS ,

The relevant submittals from each of the named reactor plants were reviewed to determine compliance with items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Generic Letter. First, the submittals from each plant were reviewed to determine that these two items were specifically addressed. Second, the submittals were checked to determine if there were any post-maintenance test items specified by the technical specifications that were suspected to degrade rather than enhan,ce safety. Last, the submi+.tals were. reviewed for evidence of special conditions or other significant information relating to the two items of concern. The results of this review are summarized for each plant in Table 1.

All of the responses indicated that there had been no items identified from the licensee review of the technical specifications relating to post-maintenance testing that could be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety. However, the licensees gave no insight on the depth of review conducted on these two items.

o 2

4 The BWR Owners Group is presently addressing Generic Letter 83-28 item 4.5.3 3whi.ch may result in proposed changes to the technical specification requirements for surveillance testing frequency and l out-of-service intervals for surveillance testing. The primary concern of j j item 4.5.3 is the surveillance testing intervals. Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 l are specifically directed at post-maintenance test requirements. These concerns are essentially independent. However, the evaluations of these concerns are coordinated so that any correlation between these concerns will be adequately considered. Since no specific proposal to change the technical specifications has been proposed, there is no identifiable need at this time for correlating the reviews of item 4.5.3 with this review.

I J

l .

3

TABLE l.

We re i tems 3.1. 3 Response

. and 3.2.3 Addressed Licenseo Findings Acceptable Comments Plants in the Subelttal.

Yes No tech, spec, items yes --

LaSalle Unit 1 and 2 Identitled that .

~

degrade sarety l Yes No tech. spec. Items yes --

WNP-2 Identified that degrade safety 4

5. REVIEW RESULTS FOR WNP-2 f

I 5.1 Evaluation Washington Public Power Supply System, the licensee for WNP-2, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on i November 18, 1983.5 Within the responses, the ifcensee's evaluation for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 is that no technical specification requirements for post-maintenance testing have been identified which will result in degraded safety of the reactor trip system and other safety-related omponents. The licensee has committed to continuously review incomf 6 9 vendor information and engineering recommendations with respect to impact on components 1

reliability. Should the potential for degradation of safety due to post-maintenance test requirements be identified, the licensee will submit appropriate changes and justification for NRC approval.

5.2 Conclusion i

Based on the licensee's statement that they have reviewed their technical specification requirements to identify any post maintenance testing which coul'd be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety and found none that degraded safety, we find t$e licensee's responses acceptable. _

t l The licensee's commitment to continue to review incoming vendor i information and engineering.recomm.endations regarding identification of

' requirements that could degrade safety, provides additional assurance that l

I the technical specifications will continue to provide a basis for safe I

plant operation and is acceptable.

f 1

I i

6 i

o

7. REFERENCES

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

" Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)", July 8,1983.

2. Generic Impli-.tions of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, NUREG-1000, V>lume 1, April 1983; Volume 2, July 1983.

3. BWR Owners' Group Responses to NRC Generic Letter 83-28, Items 4.5.3, General Electric Company Proprietary Information, NEDC-30844, January 1985.

J l- 4. Commonwealth Edison letter to NRC, P. L. Barnes to H. R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, "Dresden Station i

Units 2 and 3,- Quad Cities Station Units 1 and 2, Zion Station Units 1 and 2, Lasalle County Station Units 1 and 2, Byron Station Units 1 and 2, Braidwood Station Units I and 2, Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28, NRC Docket Nos. 50-237/249, 50-254/265, 50-295/304, l

50-373/374, 50-454/455, and 50-456/457," November 5, 1983.

. 5. Washington Public Power Supply System letter to NRC, G. C. Sorensen, Manager, Regulatory Programs to A. Schwencer, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 2, Division of Licensing, NRC," Nuclear Project No. 2, Response to Generic Letter 83-28," November 18, 1983, G02-83-1076.

s i

e J

T 8

,- . . . - - - -