ML20138B573

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3 for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Unit 2

ML20138B573
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	09/30/1985
From:	Vanderbeek R EG&G IDAHO, INC.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML17139D247	List: ML20137E693 ML20138B573
References
CON-FIN-D-6002 GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8510150484
Download: ML20138B573 (7)

Text

. .

. Enclosure 3 1

4 i

CONFORMANCE'TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 SUS 00EHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT NO. 2 R. VanderBeek g 64 701%

Published September 1985 i

I f

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Ioaho 83415 '

'~ ,

A .,

. Prepared fdr the i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission s

[3 l Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 b l*

FIN No. 06002 ,e 'U-ke l if7u(t

&~ kS '

,-( o, p l

w-

ABSTRACT This EG&G Idano, Inc. report reviews the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Unit No. 2 submittal for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, items 3.1.3 ano 3.2.3.

j FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating j licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 " Required Actions based on Generic Implications 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 Iaaho, Inc., NRR anu I & E Support Branen.

Tne U.S. huclear Regulatory Commission fundeo the work under tne authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN No. D6002.

1 i

l l - -

{

i l.

, Docket No. 50-388 e .  !

l TAC Nos. 59512 and 57851 l ii

i 4

l

,- . CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................. 11 FOREWORD .............................................................. 11

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

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

3. REVIEW RESULTS FOR SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT N05. I and 2 ................................................ 3 3.1 Evaluation ................................................. 3 i

3.2 Conclusion ................................................. 3

! 4 REFERENCES ....................................................... 4 i

?i I

J i

I 1

. ws" ,

1. =

& g

'I ,.. < .

1

+

e e

j i

t Y

f4 111 ,

I r

1 I

I

- CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 ,

SUSQUEHANNA ie

! STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT N0. 2

1. INTRODUCTION On July 8, 1983, Generic Letter No.83-28I was issued by e 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. Tnis letter included required actions based on generic implications of Salem ATWS

events. Tnese requirements have been published in Volume 2 of NUREG-1000,

" Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant".2 Tnis report oocuments tne EGsG Icano, Inc. review of tne suomitta1 from Susquenanna Steam Electric Station Unit No. 1 for conformance~to

! items 3.1.3 ano 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28. The suomittal ano otner l

documents utilized in this evaluation are referenced in Section 4 of this

. report.

l 4

l

~ ..

e e

G

• e r

! l

i l

2. REVIEW REQUIREMEtiTS i

1 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 demonstratea to degrade rather than enhance safety. Item 3.2.3 extends tnis same requirement to include all otner safety-relatea components. Any proposed technical specification changes resulting from this action snall receive a pre-implementation review by fiRC.

Tne relevant sucmittal for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Unit tio. 1 was reviewed to determine compliance with items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Generic Letter. First, the sucmittal for this plant was reviewed to aetermine that these two items were specifically addressed. Second, the sucmittal was cnecked to cetermine if there were any post-maintenance test items specified by the technical specifications that were suspected to oegrade rather than ennance safety. Last, the submittal was revieked for evidence of special conditions or other significant information relating ,to the two items of concern.

The BWR Owners Group is presently addressing Generic Letter 83-28 item 4.5.[ which may result in proposea cnanges to the tecnnical specification requirements for surveillance testing frequency and out-of-service intervals for surveillsnce testing. Tne primary concern of item 4.5.3 is the surveillance testing intervals. Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 are specifically airected at post-maintenance test requirements. Tnese concerns are essentially independent. However, the evaluations of these concerns are coordinated so that any correlation betweerj[these concerns till be adequately considered. Since no specific proposal to change the technical specifications has oeen proposed, 'there is no identifiable neea at this time for correlating the reviews of' item 4.5.3 with this review.

e 2

l

, 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, .

NUMtG-1000, Volume I, Apri1 1963; yolume 2, duly 1963.

. 3. BWR Owners' Group Responses to NRC Generic Letter 83-28, Item 4.5.3, ueneral ciectric company eroprietary inrarmation, htVL-JUd44, January 1965.

4. Pennsylvania Power & Lignt Coa.pany letter to NRC, N. W. Curtis to

0. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, "Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Response to Generic Letter 83-28, ER 100450/100508 File 841-2, PLA-1827," November 4, 1983.

i i

I

• i .

2 1 -

an p l  % ,

l 4 i

r i

9

• / e 0

! f 4 [

[

I

l

- 3. REVIEW RESULTS FOR SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATI0h UNIT NO. 2 3.1 Evaluation Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, the licensee for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Unit No. 1 provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 4, 1983.4 Within the responses, the licensee's evaluaticn 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 icentified for tne reactor trip system or other safety-related components wnich tendeo to degrade rather than enhance plant safety.

3.2 Conclusion Baseo on tne licensee's statement that they nave reviewed their tecnnical specification requirements to icentify any post maintenance, testing wnica coulc De cemonstrated to degrade rather than enhance ~ safety and f ouna none that degraced safety, we fina the licensee's responses acceptacle.

Tne licensee's ccmmitment to pursue this concern througn his participation in the BWROG Technical Specification Review Committee provides aaaitional assurance that tne technical specifications will continue to provide a basis for safe plant operaton and is acceptable.

~

, ' a ,

O y e

e d

0

• /

t I

3 i

- m. - -y .,, , , , _ . . , , - , - - - - - ~ , , , , v., -e, - - --y., , 4,.