ML20138H172
| ML20138H172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138H169 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, TAC-53030, TAC-53031, NUDOCS 8510280300 | |
| Download: ML20138H172 (1) | |
Text
'
'!an o
UNITED STATES
(
8
~,1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELAftU TO GENERIC LtiltR 83-28, ITEM 5 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING (CHANGE 5 TO TECH SPEC 5 RTS AND SR COMPONENTS, FOR THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 5 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05, 50-266 AND 50-301 INTRODUCTION Subsequent to the anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) events at the Salem ATWS Nuclear Power Plant, the Comission reviewed intermediate term actions to be taker. by the licensees. The actions taken were developed on the basis of information contained in NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant." On July 8, 1983, Generic Letter (GL) 83-28 was issued by NRR. The letter identified NRC positions developed from review of the SALEM ATWS events. These positions are related to reactor trip system reliability and general management capability. The specific GL 83-28 items covered by this Safety Evaluation are Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, " Post-Maintenance Testing", - changes to the technical specifications, RTS and SR components.
By letter dated November 7,1983. Wisconsin Electric Power Company responded to specific items of GL 83-28. The licensee sumarized the results of the requested review and concluded that all items have been appropriately addressed.
EVALUATION Licensees were required by Generic Letter 83-28 items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 to review their existing Technical Specifications for post maintenance testing requirements that may degrade rather than enhance safety.
The staff contracted EG&G of Idaho to review the licensee's responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.
The details of the review are contained in the l
attached Technical Evaluation Report (TER) EG&G EA-7000. The staff has l
reviewed the TER and concurs in its findings.
CONCLUSION Based on our review, the staff finds that the licensee has adequately addressed the concerns identified in Generic Letter 83-28 items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 and, therefore, these items are considered complete for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
I Principal Contributor:
T. Colburn Date: October 18, 1985 8510280300 851018 ADocK 05
Attachment:
EG8G EA-7000 g6
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 R. O. Haroldsen Re.p.t F4 - 7eoo Published July 1985 EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN No. D6001 ji#
-=
g f
- M.
q g'
y sp; 3
i j
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 Ginna 50-244 53003,53841 50-305 53010,53848 Kewaunee i
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 conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear
~
Reactor Regulation, Division of System Integration by EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRC
~
~
Licensing Support Section.
t The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission funded the work under the
)
authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN No. D6001.
T O
e I
11 i
c
CONTENTS 11 A B S T RA CT..............................................................
f FOREWORD...................................'...........................
11 1
1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................,
2 2.
REV I E W REQUI RE ME NT S..............................................
2 l
3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS.............................................
4 4.
REV I E W RE SULTS FOR GI NN A.........................................
4 4.1 Evaluation..................................................
4 4.2 Conclusion..................................................
r 5.
R E V I E W R E SULT S F OR K E WAU NE E......................................
5 5.1 Evaluation'..................................................
5 5.2 Conclusion..................................................
5 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR POINT BEACH UNITS 1 AND 2.....................
6 1
l 6.1 Evaluation..................................................
6 f
6.2 Conclusion..................................................
6 7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PRAIRIE ISLAND UNITS 1 AND 2..................
7 7.1 Evaluation..................................................
7 i
7.2 conclusion..................................................
7 8.
GROUP CONCLUS' ION.................................................
8 I
9.
REFERENCES.......................................................
9 TABLES TABLE 1...............................................................
3 4
s 1
e l
iii l
l l.
I-CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 f
f GINNA, KEWAUNEE, POINT BEACH. UNITS 1 AND 2, PRAIRIE ISLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 1.
INTRODUCTION y
i 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 j
included required actions based on generic implications of the Salem ATWS i
events. These requirements have been published in Volume 2 of NUREG-1000, l
" Generic Implications of ATWS Events at.the Salem Nuclear Power Plent".2 This report documents the EG8G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals from Ginna, Xewaunee, Point Beach Units 1 and 2, and Prairie Island Units 1 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 j
referenced in Section 9 of this report.
1 These review results are appitcable to the group of nuclear plants 1
previously identified because of their similarity. These plants are similar in the following respects:
1.
They are operating Westinghouse PWR reactors.
r 2.
They utilize the dry type Containment System.
3.
They utilize two class lE Power System Trains.
4.
They utilize rely type plant protection system logic.
4 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.
1
.,---r-.
,-m
,,-,-,..,---,e.,.w-
.,-r------..~..
,,,w,.
,e_-,
2.
REVIEW REQUIREME:.TS l
~
Item 3.1.3 (Post-Maintenance Testing of Reactor Trip System i
Component's) requires licensees and applicants to identify, if applicable, any p it-maintenance test requirements for the Reactor Trip System'(RTS) in exis ing technical specifications which can be demonstrated to degrade rat ar than enhance safety. Item 3.2.3 extends this same requirement to include all other safety-related components. Any proposed technical i
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 remed reactor pl~ ants were reviewed to determine compliance with items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Generic Letter. First, the submittal:, 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 sununarized for each plant in Table 1.
All of the licensee responses indicated that there had been no items identified in their 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.
i I
2
TABLE 1.
Were Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 addressed in the Responses Submittal?
Licensee Findings Acceptable 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 Yes Point Beach 1 & 2 Yes No post-maintenance test requirements have been identified in the Tech Specs that degrade safety 4
Prairie Is1rnd 1 & 2 Yes No Tech Spec requirements Yes are perceived to degrade safety O
0 e
s S
3 I
4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR GINNA 4.1 Evaluation Rochester Gas and Electric Co., the licensee for the Ginna plant,-
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 statement that nc 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 reets the requirements of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 and is acceptable.
3 O
e e
e M
p e
4
- 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 sede 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.
t 9
e 5
4 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 November 7, 1983.5 In their response to item 3.1.3 they state that no post-maintenance test r cw;rements 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 d ate. 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 test requirements were identified in the technical specifications that degrade safety meets the requirements of the Generic Letter for these items and are acceptable.
e f
M +
o 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 Letter in
~
their submittal dated November 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. Ev61uation 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.
J e
?
e i,
^
'[
0 1
NC e e
I r
7
\\
r 9
.. _,, - -, - +
8.
GROUP CONCLUSION All of licensee submittals from this gro'up of plants provided i
l responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Generic Letter 83-28. These responses were reviewed and found to be adequate and acceptable.
l W
1
's j
l d
M '
0 1
e f
8
r
' ' J7f '
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 Plant, NUREG-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.
Letter D to Director, Office of Nuclear. M. Musolf, Northern States Power Co.,1983.
6.
Reactor Regulation, NRC, November 4,
.~
l l
9
--.-,n--
-n.,
-,~ -
an.