ML20134K959

Forwards Safety Evaluation Based on Review of 831105 Response to Generic Ltr 83-28 Re Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events.Sections 3.1.3 & 3.2.3 Re post-maint Testing Acceptable

ML20134K959
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	08/22/1985
From:	Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8508300547
Download: ML20134K959 (3)

Text

f' *i

. 'p AUG 2 2 1985 Docket Nos. 50-373/374 Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Director of Licensing Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690

SUBJECT:

SAFETY EVALUATION OF LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 & 2, GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 By letter dated November 5, 1983, you responded to Generic Letter 83-28 with regard to required actions based on generic implications of Salem ATWS events for La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2. The enclosed Safety Evaluation was prepared as a result of completing our review on certain applicable portions of your response to Generic Letter 83-28.

Based on our review, we conclude that your 3.1.3, " Post Maintenance Testing (Reactor Trip System Components)" and 3.2.3, " Post-Maintenance Testing (All other Safety-Related Components)" for La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2, are acceptable. This completes our action en the subject issues.

Sincerely, On-isioni signed by 2 Walter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 91 vision of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

-DISTRIBUTION: fDodef Fils ^

NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System NSIC LB#2 Peading 'EHylton ' ABournia Woodhead,0 ELD ACRS (16) JPartlow BGrines EJordan LKintner JHopkins LB#2/DL/PM LB#2/DL/BC f '

. ABournia

lb WButler I 08/J.(/85 4

08/3 \/85 1

8508300547 850822 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P PDR l t I

e- * # "e59 na v 4 UNITED STATES E', '

^n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h  : WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%,,,./ AUG 2 21985 Docket Nos. 50-373/374 Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Director of Licensing Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690

SUBJECT:

SAFETY EVALUATION OF LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 & 2, GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 By letter dated Noven.oer 5,1983, you responded to Generic Letter 83-28 with regard to required actions based on generic implications of Salem ATWS events for La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2. The enclosed Safety Evaluation was prepared as a result of completing our review on certain applicable portions of your response to Generic Letter 83-28.

Based on our review, we conclude that your 3.1.3, " Post Maintenance Testing (Reactor Trip System Components)" and 3.2.3, " Post-Maintenance Testing (All other Safety-Related Components)" for La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2, are acceptable. This completes our action on the subject issues.

Sincerely, Walter R. Butler, Chiet Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

a

, t'r. Pennis'L. Farrar . La Salle County 1:uclear Power Station

-Commonwealth Edison Ccmptry Units 1 L 2 ,

cc:

Fl.ilip F. Steptoe, " squire John l!. f:cCsffrey Suite 4200~ .

-Chief, Public Utilities Division One First liational Pitze 160 North La Salle Street, Roca 500 Chicago, Illinois EC603 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Assistant Attorney General IEL 1: cst handolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Rcsident-Inspector /LaSalle,IJS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Rural Route he. 1 Post-Office Ocx 224 lierseilles, Illinois 61?41 Chairman La Salle County Board of Superviscrs La Salle County Courthouse Ottawa, lilinois 61350 Attorney General 500 South 2nd Street Springfielo, Illinois 62701 .

Chainaan Illinois Ccmerce Commission Lelend Building SE7 East Capitol Avenue Springfield, Illir.cis 62706 Mr. Gary 11. t!right, I;anager i:tclear Facility Safety Illirois Department of fluclear Scfety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Sprirgfield, Illinois 62704 Regional Administrator, Region III 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Rossevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 l

1 l

i a-

1 l

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 DRESDEN UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3, MILLSTONE UNIT NO. 1 MONTICELLO, PILGRIM, QUAD CITIES UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 R. VanderBeek Published June 1985 EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idano Falls, Idaho' 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. D6001 1).cc ,1c u _,r otZl

~'

a v passf N i

- 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 applicability of the review items. The group includes the following plants:

Plant Docket Number TAC Numbers Dresden 2 50-237 ,

52995, 53833 Dresden 3 50-249 52996, 53834 Millstone 1 50-245 53016, 53855 Monticello 50-263 53018, 53857 Pilgrim 50-293 53029, 53868 Quad Cities 1 50-254 53034, 53873 Quad Cities 2 50.-265 53035, 53874 FOREWORD 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 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.

11

. CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................. i FOREWORD ......................................................... .... i

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

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

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

4. REVIEW RESQLTS FOR DRESDEN UNIT NOS . 2 AND 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1 Evaluation ............................'..................... 5 4.2 Conclusion ................................................. 5

5. REVIEW RESU LTS FOR MI LLSTONE 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1 Evaluation ................................................. 6 5.2 Conclusion ................................................. 6

6. REVI EW RESU LTS FOR MONTICELLO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1 Evaluation ................................................. 7 6.2 Conclusion ................................................. 7

7. REV I EW RESU LTS FOR PI LGRIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1 Evaluation ................................................. 8 7.2 Conclusion ................................................. 8

8. REVIEW RESULTS FOR QUAD CITIES UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1 Evaluation ................................................. 9 8.2 Conclusion .................................................

9

9. GROUP CONCLUSION ................................................. 10

10. . REFERENCES ....................................................... 11 TABLES

1. Table 1 .......................................................... 4 iii

. . l CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 DRESDEN UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3, MILLSTONE UNIT NO. 1 MONTICELLO, PILGRIM, QUAD CITIES UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2

1. INTRODUCTION On July 8, 1983, Generic Letter No. 83-281was 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 holders of construction permits. This letter included required actions based 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 This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals from Dresden Units Nos. 2 and 3, Millstone Unit No. 1, Monticello, Pilgrim, and Quad Cities Unit Nos. I and 2 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 referenced in section 10 of this report.

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

1. They are operating GE-BWR reactors

2. They utilize the MARK 1 Containment and Pressure Suppression Systems

3. They are 1965 and 1966 (Model 3) reactors

4. They utilize two class IE Power System Trains

5. 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.

1

"" ' ~~

L- _ i -- - _ _ ,_

. . l

2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 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 s,ecifications 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 enhance safety. Last, the submittals 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.

With the exception of the response for the Pilgrim Station, all of the responses indicated that there had been no items identified from the licensees 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.

The response for Monticello indicated that the licensee had based his evaluation on an incomplete review of the technical specification requirements and is taking the position that no further review or action is required for the two items since the partial reviews had identified no 2

post-maintenance testing requirements that degrade rather than enhance safety of the reactor trip system or other safety-related components.

The licensee's response for Pilgrim Station did not addre.ss the central issue of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, i.e., to identify any post-maintenance test requirements in existing technical specifications which can be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety of the reactor trip system and other safety related components.

The BWR Owners Group is presently addressing Generic Letter 83-28 item 4.5.33which may result in proposed changes to the technical specification requirements for surveillance testing frequency and out-of-service intervals for testing and post-maintenance testing. The primary concern of item 4.5.3 is the surveillance testing intervals.

Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 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 h

3

TABLE 1. .

We re i tems 3.1. 3 and 3.2.3 Addressed Responses .

Plants in the Suhaittal Licensee Findings Acceptable Comments Dresden 2 and 3 7es No tech spec. Items .Yes --

identitled that degrade safety Millstone 1 Yes No tech, spec. Items Yes --

identitled that degrade safety Monticello Yes --

No Reviews not complete, however, licensee's position is that no further action would be requi red.

Pilgrim Yes --

No The licensee has not provided an evaluation response.

Quad Cities.1 and 2 Yes No tech. spec. Items Yes --

identitled that degrade safety e

h .

I i

. l l

4. REVIEW RESULTS FOR DRESDEN UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 4.1 Evaluation Commonwealth Edison, the licensee for Dresden Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 5, 1983.4 Within the responses, the licensee's evaluation for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 is that, following a review of the technical specifications, there were no post-maintenance test requirements identified for the reactor trip system or other safety-related components which tended to degrade rather than enhance plant' safety.

4.2 Conclusion Based on the licensee's statement that they have reviewed their technical specification requirements to identify any post maintenance testing which could be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety and found none that degraded safety, we find the licensee's responses acceptable.

5

. l

8. REVIEW RESULTS FOR QUAD CITIES UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 8.1 Evaluation Commonwealth Edison, licensee for the Quad Cities Station Unit Nos. I and 2, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 5, 1983.4 Within the responses, the licensee's evaluation for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 is that, following a review of the technical specifications, there were no post-maintenance test requirements identified for the reactor trip system or other safety-related components which tended to degrade rather than enhance plant safety.

8.2 Conclusion Based on the licensee's statement that they have reviewed their technical specification requirements to identify any post maintenance testing which could be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety and found none that degraded safety, we find the licensee's responses acceptable.

9

3

9. GROUP CONCLUSION With the exception of the responses for Pilgrim Station and Monticello, the staff concludes that the licensees' responses for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 are adequate and acceptable, i

4 f

a 10 w- - -

- ., .-. .= _ . .= .-. : = .:. _ __ . - . - . _

., j l

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

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

4. Commonwealth Edison letter to NRC, P. L. Barnes to H. R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, "Dresden Station 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 1 and 2, Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28, NRC Docket Nos. 50-237/249, 50-254/265, 50-295/304, 50-373/374, 50-454/455, and 50-456/457," November 5, 1983.

5. Northeast Utilities letter to NRC, W. G. Counsil to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, "Haddam Neck Plant, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events,"

November S, 1983.

6. Northern States Power Company letter to NRC, D. Musolf to Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, License No. DPR-22, Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events. (Generic Letter 83-28)",

November 14, 1983.

7. -Boston Edison Company letter to NRC, W. D. Harrington to D. B. Vassallo, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 2, Division of

- Licensing, NRC, " Response to Generic Letter 83-28", November 7, 1983.

11