ML20137J704
| ML20137J704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee, Point Beach, Prairie Island, Ginna, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1985 |
| From: | Haroldsen R EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J709 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EA-7000, GL-83-28, TAC-53003, TAC-53010, TAC-53030, TAC-53031, TAC-53032, TAC-53033, TAC-53841, TAC-53848, TAC-53869, TAC-53870, TAC-53871, TAC-53872, NUDOCS 8509060182 | |
| Download: ML20137J704 (15) | |
Text
'
o, CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.l.3 AND 3.2.3 GINNA, KEWAUNEE, POINT BEACH UNITS 'l AND 2, PRAIRIE ISLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 R. O. Haroldsen Rep,+
EA-7 coo Published July 1985 EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20S55 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN No. 06001 A
v5$9dbdas
ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of tne submittals for several nuclear plants for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, items.3.1.3 and 3.2.3.
The specific plants selected were reviewed as a group because of similarity in type and applicability of the review items. The group includes the following plants:
Plant Docket Nunber TAC Numbers Ginna 50-244 53003,53841 Kewaunee 50-305 53010,53848
+
Point Beach 1 50-266 53030,53869 Point Beach 2 50-301 53031,53870 Prairie Island 1 50-282 53032,53871 Prairie Island 2 50-306 53033,53872 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 con 6 acted 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, 8&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN No. D6001.
6 11 I
i
t CONTENTS A B ST RA C T..............................................................
11 FOREWORD..............................................................
ii 1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................,
1 2.
RE V I E W REQU I RE ME NT S............................................ :.
2 3.
G ROUP RE VI EW R E SULT S.............................................
2 4.
REVI E W RESULTS FOR G I NNA.........................................
4 4.1 Evaluation..................................................
4 4.2 Conclusion..................................................
4 5.
R E VI E W R E SULT S F OR K E WAUNE E......................................
5 5.1 Evaluation..................................................
5 5.2 Conclusion..................................................
5 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR POINT BEACH UNITS 1 AND 2.....................
6 6.1 Evaluation..................................................
6 6.2 Conclusion..................................................
6 7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PRAIRIE ISLAND UNITS 1 AND 2..................
7 7.1 Evaluation..................................................
7 7.2 C o nc l u s i o n..................................................
7 8.
GROUP CONCLUSION.................................................
8 9.
REFERENCES.......................................................
9 TABLES TABLE 1...............................................................
3 I
i 1
l 3
111
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 GINNA, KEWAUNEE, POINT BEACH UNITS 1 AND 2 PRAIRIE ISLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 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 required actions based on generic implications of the Salem ATWS events. These requirements have been published in Volure 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 Ginna, Kewaunee, Point Beach Units 1 and 2, and Prairie Island Units 1 ar.d 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 9 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 Westinghouse PWR reactors.
2.
They utilize the dry type Containment System.
3.
They utilize two class lE Power System Trains.
4.
They utilize relay type plant protection system logic.
l An item of concern identified for any one of these plants is assumed '
to be potentially significant for all of the remaining plants in the group.
I i
l 1
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 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 any post-maintenance test items specified in the technical specifications were identified that were suspected to degrade ratner 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 these review are summarized for each plant in Table 1.
All of the licensee responses indicated that there had been no items identified in tneir te.chnical 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.
e 4
m 2
l-
i TABLE 1.
Were Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 addressed in the Responses Submittal?
Licensee Findings Acceptable 1
Ginna Yes No post-maintenance test Yes requirements identified in existing Tech Specs that degrade safety.
Kewaunee Yes Current Tech Spec Yes requirements do not degrade safety Point Beach 1 & 2 Yes No post-maintenance test Yes requirements have been identified in the Tech Specs thet degrade safety Prairie Island 1 & 2 Yes No Tech Spec requirements Yes are perceived to degrade safety 6
e k
O l
d 3
4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR GINNA 4.1 Evaluation Rochester Gas and Electric Co., the licensee for the Ginna plante provided a response to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Generic Letter in their submittal dated November 4, 1983.3 Their response to the two items is combined in a single statenent that no post-maintenance test requirements in the existing Technical Specifications have been identified that degrade rather than enhance safety.
4,2 Conclusion The licensee's statement meets the requirements of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 and is acceptable.
~5~
i i
4
=
4 y
~-
5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR KEWAUNEE 5.1 Evaluation Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, the licensee for the Kewaunee plant, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Generic Letter in their submittal dated December 2, 1983.4 The response to item 3.1.3 states that the Technical Specifications were reviewed and a determination made that there are no requirements in the Technical Specifications that degrade safety. The response to item 3.2.3 indicates a similar conclusion based on their review and operating experience.
5.2 Conclusion Based on the licensee's statements that they have reviewed their Technical Specifications to identify any post-maintenance testing that degrades safety and found none, we find the licensee's responses acceptable for these items.
I B
e 9
l l
l t-
-- ~.
6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR POINT BEACH UNITS 1 AND 2 6.1 Evaluation Wisconsin Electric Power Co., the licensee for the Point Beach Units 1 and 2 provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Generic Letter in their submittal dated Novenber 7,1983.
In their response to item 3.1.3 they state that no post-maintenance test reqLirements have been identified in the Technical Specifications that degrade safety.
In their response to item 3.2.3 they also state that no post-maintenance test requirements have been identified in the Technical Specifications that degrade safety to date. They further state that a detailed review is continuing and that the NRC will be informed if any items are identified.
6.2 Conclusion The licensee's statements that a review for each item was conducted and no post-maintenance ted$ requirements were identified in the technical specifications that degrade safety meets the requirements of the Generic Letter for these items and are acceptable.
4 e
6
7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PRAIRIE ISLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 7.1 Evaluation Northern States Power Co., the licensee for the Prairie Island Units 1 and 2, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Generic Let'ter in their submittal dated Noventer 4, 1983.6 The same response was submitted for both items. The response states that at the present time, no technical specification requirements have been identified that are perceived to degrade safety. Evaluation is continuing.
7.1 Conclusion The licensee's statements that a review was conducted for each item and no post-maintenance test requirements were identified in the technical specifications that degrade safety meets the requirements of the Generic Letter for these items and are acceptable.
=
7 i
8.
GROUP CONCLUSION All of licensee submittals from this group of plants provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Generic Letter 83-28. These l
responses were reviewed and found to be adequate and acceptable.
e 1
1 e
a 4
4
(
e 9
s l
8
9.
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 P.lant, huREG-1000 Volume 1, April 1983; Volume 2, July 1983.
3.
Letter, J. E. Maier, Rochester Gas and Electric Corp., to D. M. Crutchfield, NRC November 4,1983.
4.
Letter, C. W. Giesler, Wisconsin Public Service Corp., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, December 2,1983.
5.
Letter, C. W. Fay, Wisconsin Electric Power Co. to H. R. Denton, NRC, November 7,1983.
6.
Letter D of Nuciear. M. Musolf, Northern States Power Co.,1983.to Director, Office Reactor Regulation, NRC, November 4, e
i 9
ENCLOSURE _
l 1C58 SALP INPUT PLANT:
Kewaunce
SUBJECT:
Review of G.L. 83-28, Items 3.1.3, 3.2.3 PERF0RtiANCE BASIS D EUATION CATE N CRITERIA Original response was prunpt and addressed the concerns. Further consnunication I
with the licensee was not needed to resolve these concerns.
1.
Management Involvement 1
Licensee's response was complete and pemitted rapid evaluation of their compliance.
2.
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues i
1 1
Original response was prompt. No folicwups on these items were neeoed to l
3*
3g,,,,55 detemine their acceptability.
i l
4.
Enforcement N/A No basis for assessment.
i History
~
5.
Reportable Events N/A No basis for assessment, l
11 6
N/A No basis for assessment.
6.
Staffing I
- 7. Trafning N/A Ho basis for assessment, e
ENCLOSURE 1
1C58 SALP INPUT __
PLANT: Point Beach Units 1 2
SUBJECT:
Review of G.L. 83228. Items 3.I.3, 3.2.3 PERFoltWUICE BASIS EVALUATIg CATE N CRITERIA Further consnunication Original response was prus.pt and addressed the concerns.
1 with the licensee was not needed to resolve these concerns.
1.
Management Involvement Licensee's response was complete and pemitted rapid evaluation of their compliance.
1 2.
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues 1
Original response was prompt. No followups on these items were neeoed to 3*
3 9,,,
detemine their acceptability.
i i
4.
Enforcement N/A No basis for assessment.
l History i
5.
Reportable Events N/A No basis for assessment.
f, I
p H/A No basis for assessment.
I 6.
Staffin'j i
l
- 7. Training
(
N/A Ho basis for assessment.,
l
ENCLOSURE _
ICSB SALP INPUT __
PLANT: Prairie Island't. 8b-28'2 Uni
SUBJECT:
Review of G.
Items 3.1.3, 3.2.3 PERF0ftiMCE BASIS EVALUATION CATEGORY CRITERIA Original response was prompt and addressed the concerns. Further comunication I
with the licensee was not needed to resolve these concerns.
1.
Management Involvement L,
1 Licensee's response was complete and permitted rapid evaluation of their compliance.
2.
Approach to Resolution of.
Technical Issues 1
Original response was prompt. No followups on these items were neeoed to 3*
g,gg determine their acceptability.
1 l
4.
Enforcement N/A No basis for assessment.
i History i
i i
i 5.
Reportable Events N/A No basis for assessment.
L
(
H/A No basis for assessment.
i 6.
Staffing
- 7. Training g
N/A Ho basis for assessment..
J
,I