ML20136G863

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3,Hope Creek Unit 1

ML20136G863
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	11/30/1985
From:	Haroldsen R EG&G IDAHO, INC.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20136G869	List: ML20136G863 ML20137L732 ML20137L740
References
CON-FIN-D-6002 GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8511220484
Download: ML20136G863 (7)

Text

.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION P,EPORT O

9 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 HOPE CREEK UNIT 1 R. Haroldsen NTA-7DEE Published November 1985 .

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415

) Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coundssion Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. 06002 I I l'

1 1

8 !!22048y 14

. -. . . . . -. --- . - - . . . . . . . . . ; 9k. . . . . .. .. ..... . , _ . . . ._. _ _

}

1 t

ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from Hope Creek Unit 1, for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.

< 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 being conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear' Reactor Regulation, Division of System Integration by. EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRR and I & E Support Branch. -

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the authori:ation, B&R 10-19-19-11-3, FIN No. 06002.

I i

1 Docket No. 50-354 O

11 p.... .

CONTENTS

. ABSTRACT ............................................................... 1i FOREWORD ............................................................... 11 1.

IhTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1

2. REVIEW REOUIREMENTS ................................................ 2 3.

REVIEW RESULTS ..................................................... 3 .

3.1 Evaluation ................................................... 3 3.2 Conclusion ..............................................'.... 3

4. REFERENCES ......................................................... 4 a-0 I

s iii

~ - .... ..

, _ , _ _ , --y,g -

"v" *~ ~ ^*' __ __ _ _ , _ . , _ , _ _ _ , ,

' CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 82-28 '

ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3

, HOPE CREEK UNIT 1

1. INTRODUCTION On July 8, 1983, Generic Letter No.83-28I 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 holders of construction permits. This letter included requireo actions based on the generic implicatinos of the Safem 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 Hope Creek Unit I for conformance to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28.

The submittals and other documents utilized in this .,

evaluation are referenced in Section 4 of this report.

e 1 *

2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 3.l.3 (Post-Maintenance Testing of Reactor Trip System i* Components) requires licensees and applicants to identify, if applicable, any cost-ma.intenance test requirements for the reactor trip system (RTS) in l* existing technical specifications which can be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety. Item 3.2.3 applies this same requirement to f all other safety-related components. Any proposed technical specification i

changes resulting from this action shall receive a pre-implementation i

review by NRC.

I The relevant submittals for Hope Creek Unit' 1, were reviewed to determine compliance with items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the generic letter.

First, the submittals from this plant were reviewed to determine that these two items were specifically addressed. Second,.the submittals were checked j to determine if any post-maintenance test items specified in the technical l specifications were identified that were suspected to degrade rather than enhance safety. Last, the submittal was reviewed for evidence of special conditions or other significant information relating to the two items of Concern.

j 3

=

3 2-

- -. - .- -. ....~ .. -_.--.. ...._.

,_ .. . ..; . .s ..

k

3. . REVIEW RESULTS FOR HOPE CREEK UNIT 1 3.1 Evaluation Public Service Electric and Gas Co., the applicant for Hope Creek Unit 1, provioed an initial response to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter .

3 83-28 in their submittal dated March 30, 1984 . In the submittal the applicant stated that any post-maintenance test requirements which can be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety would be addressed ~

f during the preparation and review of the Technical Specifications. A later 4

submittal dated December 17, 1984 repeated the same information. '

A more complete response to items 3.l.3 and 3.2.3 were provided in the applicant's submittal dated May 21, 19855 . In this submittal the applicant states that the Draft Technical Specifications for Hope Creek Unit I are based on the BWR Standard Technical Specifications which do not require post-maintenance testing of the RPS following maintenance i

procedures but that some requirements are imposed by administrative .

procedure. .

There were 18 items identified in the technical specifications relating to safety-related equipment which explic1tly delineated post-maintenance testing following maintenance activities. Hope Creek has no operating experience from which to determine potential adverse impact on

safety as a result of post-maintenance testing. The applicant states that -

a based on review and evaluation they do not perceive the post-maintenance testing required by the technical specification to degrade safety.

3.2 Conclusion The applicant's submittals meet the requirements of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 and are acceptable.

i e

3 ff_l_ _ _ _=:~~-

~ ~ = - w~~=- ~ - - - - -- - ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

, , 4. 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 198J.

i 3. Letter, R. L. Mitt 1, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., to A. Schwencer, NRC, March 30, 1984.

4. Letter, R. L. Mitti, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., to A. Schwencer, NRC, December 17, 1984.

5. Letter, R. L. Mitti, Public Service Electric and Gas Co., to W. Butler, NRC, May 21, 1985.

S .

1

)

)

4 l

Dr r --s - . ... ... .-_..... ~ . . - - .. . ......;... . 7

, _ _ _ _ , , , , , , _ _ _ . .