ML20138H218
| ML20138H218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Surry, North Anna, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1985 |
| From: | Haroldsen R EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138H223 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 5DW-Y, GL-83-28, TAC-52980, TAC-53020, TAC-53021, TAC-53048, TAC-53049, TAC-53818, TAC-53859, TAC-53860, TAC-53887, TAC-53888, NUDOCS 8510280480 | |
| Download: ML20138H218 (10) | |
Text
.
e*
e CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 1 NORTH ANNA UNITS 1 AND 2 SURRY UNITS 1 AND 2 R. Haroldsen i
Published September 1985
)
EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Ioaho Falls, Idaho 83415 t
e Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. 06001 gpQY
ABSTRACT Tnis 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 ano 3.2.3.
The specific plants reviewed were selected as a group b,,ecause of similarity in type and applicability of the review items. The group includes the following plants:
Plant Docket Number TAC Numbers Beaver Valley 1 50-334 52980, 53818 North Anna 1 50-338 53020, 53859 North Anna 2 50-339 53021, 53860 Surry 1 50-280 53048, 53887 Surry 2 50-281 53049, 53888 FOREWORD k
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 conoucted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of System Integration by EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRR ano I & E Support Branch.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN No. 06001.
h e
e 11
l
~
CONTENTS A B ST R A C T..............................................................
11 FOREWORD..............................................................
11
~
1.
INTRODUCTION.....................................................
1 2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS........................................... 2 2
3.
GROUP REV I E W R E SULTS.............................................
2
)
4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 1..........................
4 4.1 Evaluation..................................................
4 4.2 Conclusion..................................................
4 5.
REVIEW'RESULTS FOR NORTH ANNA U?::TS 1 AND 2 AND SURRY UNITS 1 AND 2....................................................
5 5.1 Evaluation..................................................
5 5.2 Conclusion..................................................
5 6.
G ROU P C ONC LUS I ON.................................................
6 7.
REFERENCES.......................................................
7 TABLES 1.
Table 1..........................................................
3 b
e e
e 111 I
l
i CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 1 NORTH ANNA UNITS 1 AND 2 SURRY UNITS 1 AND 2
~
c 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, ano holoers of construction permits. This letter incluceo 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 EG6G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals from the Beaver Valley Unit 1, North Anna Units 1 and 2 and Surry Units 1 ano 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 7 of this report.
These review results are applicable to the group of nuclear plants previously ioentifieo because of their similarity. These plants are similar in tne following respects:
1.
They are operating 3 loop Westinghouse-PWR reactors 2.
They utilize the Type 3D Subatmospheric Containment and Pressure Suppression System 3.
They utilize 08-50 Reactor Trip Breakers 4.
They use similar Relay Type Reactor Trip Systems.
~
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
_ ~ _.
2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 3.1.3 (Post-Maintenance Testina of Reactor Trip System Components) riquires licensees and apolicants to identify, if applicable,u any post-maint'enance test requirements for the Reactor Trio System (BTS) in existina technical specifications which can be demonstrated to dearade rather than enhance safety. Item 3.2.3 extends this same requirement to include all other safety-related components. Any proposed technical soecification changes resultina from this action shall receive a pre-implementation review by PIRC.
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 werr. reviewed to determine that these two items were specifically addressed. Second, the submittals were checked to determine if there were any post-maintenance test items-specified by the technical specifications that were suspected to degrade rather than enhance safety. Last, the submittals were reviewed for evidence of special conditions or other sionificant ir. formation relatina to the two items of concern. The resu'ts of these reviews are summarized for each plant in Table 1.
All'of the responses indicated that there had been no items identified from the licensees' review of the technical specifications relatina to post-maintenance testino that could be demonstrated to deorade rather than e5~ancesafety, h
b 2
l L
\\
.- TABLE 1.
Were Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 Addressed
Response
Plant
in the Submittal Licensee Findings Acceptable Beaver ValleIy 1 Yes No post-test Yes requirement in tech spec identified that degrade safety North Anna 1 & 2 Yes No currently Yes anc Surry 1 & 2 identified test requirements that degrade safety 5
4 e
i r
I e
3 l
l
4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 1 4.1 Evaluation The Duquesne Light Co., licensee for the Beaver Valley Unit 1, provided responses to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 in c their submittal dated November 4, 1983.3 The response to Item 3.1.3 states that no post-maintenance tests, required by existing technical specifications, have been ioentified for reactor trip components which degrade safety. The response to Item 3.2.3 states a similar finding for all safety-related components.
In addition to the response to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, the submittal includes a stated concern for excessive surveillance component testing which they perceive to degrade safety. This concern is relevant to Item 4.5.3 of the Generic Letter and will be evaluated as a part of the Item 4.5.3 review.
4.2 Conclusion Baseo on the licensee's statement that no post-maintenance test rGquirements have been identified in the technical specifications that degrade safety, we find the licensee's response is acceptable.
S 0
4 i
5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR NORTH ANNA UNITS 1 AND 2 AND SURRY UNITS 1 AND 2 5.1 Evaluation e
The Virginia Electric and Power Company, licensee for North Anna, Units 1 and 2 and Surry Units 1 and 2, provided an initial response to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 4, 1983.4 The licensee stated in tneir suomittal that they could not identify any specific test requirements which degrade rather than enhance safety.
Similar statements were maoe for both Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.
1 A subsequeret response on February 8, 1985,5 confirred the earlier statements but added a statement of concern relating to frequency of surveillance testing and out of service time of some reactor systems conponents. This concern will be evaluated as a part of the Item 4.5.3 l
review.
5.2 Conclusion The licensee's submittals meet the requirements of Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Generic Letter and are acceptable.
l O
G e
5
6.
GROUP CONCLUSION The 1icensee responses for Beaver Valley 1. North Anna 1 ano 2 and Surry 1 ano 2 meet the requirements of Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic -. -
e Letter 83-28 and are acceptable.
"o G
d
{
~
i i
f 4
i e
i e
4 6
7.
REFERENCES 1.
NRC Letter, D. G. Eisephut to all Licensees of Operatina Reactors, Applicants for Operatina License, and Holders of Construction Permits, "Requ1 red Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events a
(GenericLetter83-28)," July 8,1983.
2.
Generic Imolications of ATWS Events at the Sa'lem Nuclear Power Plant, hUHtG-1000, Volume 1, April 1983; Volume 2, July 1983.
3.
Letter, J. J. Carey, Duquesne Licht Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 4,1983.
4.
Letter, W. L. Stewart, Virginia Electric and Power Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 4, 1983.
5.
Letter, W. L. Stewart, Virainia Electric and Power Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, February 8,1985.
l l
t e
O 4
7 l
l
~
l
_