ML20137S257
| ML20137S257 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Arkansas Nuclear, Crystal River, Rancho Seco, 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1985 |
| From: | Haroldsen R EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137S264 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 GL-83-28, TAC-52978, TAC-52992, TAC-53022, TAC-53023, TAC-53024, TAC-53036, TAC-53051, TAC-53816, TAC-53830, TAC-53861, TAC-53862, TAC-53863, TAC-53875, TAC-53890, NUDOCS 8509260444 | |
| Download: ML20137S257 (11) | |
Text
}
o CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 ARKANSAS 1, CRYSTAL RIVER 3, OCONEE 1, 2, AND 3 RANCHO SECO AND TMI-l 9.,
R. Haroldsen Published August 1985
. i EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Prepared for the i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 i
g FIN No. 06001
- ^ ~
t
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 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 Number TAC Numbers Arkansas 1 50-313 52978, 53816 Crystal River 3 50-302 52992, 53830 Oconee 1 50-269 53022, 53861 4
Oconee 2 50-270 53023, 53862 Oconee 3 50-287 53024, 53863 Rancho Seco 50-312 53036, 53875 1
TMI-7 50-289 53051, 53890 FOREWORD a
This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 " Required Actions i
based on Generic Implic-tions of Salem ATWS Events." This work is concucted 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. 06001.
e t
I 11 l
l
l l
CONTENTS A B ST RA C T..............................................................
11 FOREWORD..............................................................
11 1.
INTRODUCTION.....................................................
I 2.
REV I EW REQ U I RE ME NTS..............................................
3 3.
G ROUP R E V I EW RE SULT S.............................................
4 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ARKANSAS 1....................................
6 4.1 Evaluation.................................................
6 4.2 Conclusion.................................................
6 5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR CRYSTAL RIVER 3...............................
7 5.1 Evaluation.................................................
7 5.2 Conclusion.................................................
7 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR OCONEE 1, 2, AND 3............................
8 6.1 Evaluation.................................................
8 6.2 Conclusion.................................................
8 7.
REVI EW RESULTS FOR RANCHO SECO...................................
9 7.1 Evaluation.................................................
9 7.2 Conclusion.................................................
9 8.
REV I E W RESULTS FOR THI-1.........................................
10 8.1 Evaluation.................................................
10 8.2 Conclusion.................................................
10 9.
G R OU P C ONCLU SI ON S................................................
11
- 10. RErERtNCES.......................................................
iz TABLES Table 1...............................................................
5 t.
e 111
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 ARKANSAS 1, CRYSTAL RIVER 3, OCONEE 1, 2, AND 3, RANCHO SECO AND TMI 1 1.
INTRODUCTION I
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 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 Ioaho, Inc. review of the submittals from the Arkansas 1, Crystal River 3, Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Rancho Seco and TMI 1 plants for conformance to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28.
The submittals from tne licensees utilized in these evaluations are referenced in Section 10 of this report.
These generic 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 B&W reactors 2.
They utilize the type 38 containment system 3.
They are 2 loop plants 4.
They utilize 2 emergency diesel generators except the Oconee; plants that utilize alternate nydro-power units for emergency power I
5.
They utilize two class lE power trains except the Oconee plants that utilize three class lE power trains 6.
They utilize AK-2 reactor trip breakers.
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.
t 4
=
e l
l e
9 m
O e
e 6
e O
O 9
e 2
2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 3.1.3 (Post-Maintenance Testing of Reactor Trip System (RTS)
Components) requires that licensees and applicants identify, if applicable, any post-maintenance test requirements for the 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.
Ii
~
~
6 9
9 O
6 6
e f
-e e
e O
O e
e e
3
3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS The B&W Owners Group submitted a response dated November 9,1983 to Generic Letter 83-28.3 This response states that the owners group, after considerable review and discussion, concluded that plant-specific differences precluded a generic program for resolving items 3.1.3 ano 3.2.3.
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 rather than enhance s~afety. 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 reviews are summarized for each plant in Table 1.
e O
9 O
e e
e e
4 g
l e
i 4
l l
o o
TABLE 1.
Were items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 addressed
Response
Plants in submittal Licensee Findings Acceptable Comments Arkansas 1 Yes No tech spec items that Yes Depth of review not degrade safety identified--evaluation to continue Crystal River 3 Yes No post-test tech spec Yes Review will continue items identified that degrade safety Oconee 1,2 & 3 Yes No tech spec items Yes identified that degrade safety (n
Rancho Seco Yes To date no items Yes Review is ongoing identified that degrade safety TMI Yes To date no items Yes identified that degrade safety I
.I s
1 7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR RANCHO SECO 7.1 Evaluation The Sacramento Municipal Utility District, licensee for the Rancho Seco nuclear plant states in their response to Generic Letter 83-28 dated 10 May 5,1985 that they have not to date ' identified any post-maintenance test requirements in existing technical specifications that degrade rather than enhance safety.
7.2 Conclusion The licensee, response meets the requirements of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 and is acceptable to the staff.
O e
e b
O e
4 O
6
.., m f
I 9.
GROUP CONCLUSION I
The staff concludes that the licensee responses to items 3.1.3 and s
3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 are adequate and acceptable.
E i
1-t 5
g i
1 1
e e
i e
b h
E t
4 1
1 i-i J
'6
' #g l
i 7
i i
t I
t-.
r-~.,,.
,_.--.z.._--,
-~m.
m
- 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.
B&W Owners Group Response to Generic Letter 83-28 by 8&W Owners Group ATWS Comittee, November 4,1983.
4.
Letter, J. R. Marshal, Arkansas Power and Light Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, Novemter 5,1983.
5.
Letter, G. R. Westafer, Florida Power Corp, to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 4,1983.
6.
Letter, G.-R. Westafer, Florida Power Corp., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, 5
July 7,1984.
7.
Letter, H. B. T.ucker, Duke Power Co. to H. R. Denton, NRC, November 4,1983.
8.
Letter, R. J. Rodriguez, Sacr.amento Municipal Utility District, to.
D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 4,1983.
9.
Letter, R. J. Rodriguez, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, to J. F. Stolz, NRC, October 5, 1984.
- 10. Letter, R. J. Rodriguez, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, to H. L. Thompson, NRC, May 23, 1985.
- 11. Letter, H.. D. Hekill, GPU Nuclear Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 8, 1983.
- 12. Letter, H. D. Hukill, GPU Nuclear Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, February 1,1984.
e D
9 7
i 8
8 ft e