ML20138J949

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3, Farley Units 1 & 2,Turkey Point Units 3 & 4,Robinson Unit 2 & Summer Unit 1
ML20138J949
Person / Time
Site: Summer, Turkey Point, Farley, Robinson, 05000000
Issue date: 09/30/1985
From: Haroldsen R
EG&G IDAHO, INC.
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17342A284 List:
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8510290588
Download: ML20138J949 (13)
v • d • e


Text

. .

C0hFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 FARLEY, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2, TURKEY POINT,. UNIT NOS. 3 AND 4 ROBINSON, UNIT NO. 2 AND SUMMER., UNIT NO. 1 R. Harolcsen Published September 1985 EG&G Idano, Inc. .

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 ,,, - ,

o Prepared for the .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 o0 o

under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 ()

FIN No. 06001

< a

  • y-,*.. , ,

ABSTRACT .

Tais EG&G Icaho, Inc. report provices 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 selectea were reviewed as a group because of similarity in type and applicability of the review items. The group incluces the following plants:

Plant -

Docket Number TAC Numbers Farley 1 50-348 52998, 53836 Farley 2 50-364 52999,'53837 Turkey Point 3 50-250 53053, 53892 Turxey Point 4 50-251 53054 53893

, Robinson 2 50-261 53037, 53876 Sumer 1 50-395 53047, 53886 ,,

FOREWORD ..' .

This report is suppliec as part of the program for evaluating

  • Itcensee/ applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 "Requireu' Actions baseo on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This work is being concuctea for tne 0.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Office of Eclear Reactor Regulation, Division of System Integration, by EG&G Idaho, Inc.,

NRR ano'! & E Support Branch. '

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission funded the work Onder the authorization B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN No. 06001.

. s .

p

' ~

11

p. . .. ..  !. . .. . . .. . m. ._ .. ... _ .... . . . .

. _ . . . _ _..-4_ .. . . . _ .. .___- - ~ . .

CONTENTS .

ABSTRACT .............................................................. it'

, FOREWORD .............................................................. 11

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 2.- REVIEW REQUIREMENTS .............................................. 2
3. . GROUP REVIEW RESULTS ............................................. 3 4 . REVI EW RE.SULTS FOR FARLEY UNITS 1 AND 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .

4.1 Evaluation ................................. ................ 5 4.2 conclusion .................................................. S'

5. REYIEW RESULTS FOR TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 . . . .. . .... .. . . .. ... 6 5.1 Evaluation ................................................... 6 5.2 Conclusion .................................................. o
6. .REVIEWRESULTSFORROBIHSdNUNIT2............................... 7' 6.1 Evaluation .................................................. 7 1 -

6.2 Conclusion .................................................. 7

7. R EVIEW R ESULTS FOR SUMMER UNIT 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1 Evaluation .................................................. 8.

7.2 Conclusion ..................................................

8 i

8. GROUP CONCLUSION ................................................. 9'
9. REFERENCES ....................................................... 10 i TABLES -
1. Table 1 ... ...... ........................ .. .........'.......... , .

4' 4

i i.

111 , ..

1

,4 , .

$* ' l' _

- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ -- - - - - - ~ -- --- - ~ - - - - - ~'

. . v CONFORNANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 .

ITENS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 FARLEY, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, TURKEY POINT, UNITS NOS. 3 AND 4

^

o .- ROBINSON, UNIT NO. 2 AND SLMER, UNIT NO.1

1. INTRODUCTION

.v 3 On July 8, 1983, Generic Letter No.83-281 was issued by s.

D. G. Eisenhut, Director of the Division of Licensing, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for .

operating licenses, ano holders of constructicn permits. This letter .

includeo required actions based on generic implications of the Salem AT'.!S . ,

events. These requirements have been published in Volume 2 of Nt! REG-1000,

' " Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Muclear Power Plant. 2 This report documents the EGLG Idaho, Inc., review of the submittalc .

from Farley, Unit Nos. 1 ano 2, Turkey Point, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Robinson, Unit 2 anc Summer, Unit 1, for conformance to Items 3.1.3 ano 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 ,

previuusly icentified because of their similarity. Tnese plants afe i similar in the following respects: '

l. They are operating Westinghouse PWR reactors, i

~

~

2. They utilize dry type containment systems, _
3. They utilize two Class lE power system trains, '

~

~

4. They are three loop reactors, and -
5. They utilize relay type plant protection system logic. - e An item of concern identified for any one of these plants is assumed to .be potentially significant.for. all of the plants in the group.-

- ~

,j 1 .

y-. .

.....--.=.-. . . . . . . - .

. . . = .... . ,..

~ .

2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS .

Item 3.1.3 (Post-Maintenance Testing of Reactor Trip System Components)rhuireslicenseesandapplicantstoidentify,ifapplicable, ~

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 chinges resulting from this action shall receive a pre-implementation review by hRC.
i

' e t

I, e

0 l O

'  ! e i

g S 1

2 w .. . . . . . .-.n.~...- . -.--_

3. GROUP REVIEW RESULTS -

Tne relevant submittals from each of the named reactor plants were

. reviewed t6-cetemine compliance with Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the generic letter. First, the submittals from each plant were reviewed to detemine that these two items were specifically addressed. Second, the submittals were checkea to cetermine if there were any post-maintenance test items specified by the technical specifications that were suspected to degrade rather than ennance safety. Last, the submittals were reviewed for evioence of special conditions or other significant information relating to the two items of concern. The results of this review are summarizea for each plant in Table 1.

With the exception of the response for Summer, all of the responses

. indicated that no items were identified from the licensees' review of the

~

technical specifications relating to post-maintenance testing that could be '

'oemonstrated to degrade rather than, enhance safety. However, the licensees

- . gave no insight on the depth of review conducted on these two items. '

2 b

l 3

5'r{ - . . r. . . = .-.v.; . .

--~.v. .-:

. . 1 TABLE 1. .

l Were Items 2.1.3 ,

and 3.2.3 Addressed .

Plants In tne Submittal Licensee Findings Acceptable

. Farley Yes No post-maintenance Yes -

tech spec. items iden-

. tified that degrade 4

safety Turkey Point Yes No tech. spec. items Yes

, ioentified that de-grade safety Robinson 2 Yes No tech. spec. re-- Yes quirements ioentifi-ed that degrade safety ,

Summer Yes. No changes to post- No test maintenance testing required at -

this time e

i 1

b a

%O 9

e #

e e

4 r--

... . __ _,3.......,

  1. i- _. _ . _

l 4 REVIEW RESULTS FOR FARLEY UNITS 1 AND'2 -

4.1 Evaluation i e -

l AlaDama Power Company, the licensee for Farley, provided a response to l Item 3.1.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 4 '1983.3 In the' response tne licensee states that they had not identified any Technical Specification post-maintenance operability testing requiYements for the reactor trip system which may degrade safety. Tne response to Item 3.2.3 was deferred to February 6, 1984. A subsequent submittal dated February 6, 1924," requested a two week extension for a response to this item. l A response to Item 3.2.3 was incluceo in a submittal dateo i February 15, 1984.5 In tne response the licensee states that they reviewed the post-maintenance test requirements in the Technical Specifications and had not identified any which were perceivea to degrade ,

safety. This finding was reconfirmed in a later submittal dated April 22, 1985.6 ,

4.2 Conclusion The licensee's responses to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 meet the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28 ano are acceptable.

4 0

e e e*

D e

e d E 5

w-. n ~ -. . _ , _ _ _ . . -_ -. - . . - . - - - - - -----------

5. REVIEW RESULTS FOR TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 .

5.1 Evaluation Florida Power and Light Ccmpany, the licensee for Turkey Point, Unit , ,

Numoers 3 ana 4, provioed responses to Items 3.1.3 and .3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 8, 1983.7 Within the responses, the licensee's cvaluation for Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 is that, following a review of the technical specif'ications, there were no post-maintenance test requirements identified for the reactor trip system or other safety-related components thicn tenced to oegrade rather than enhance plant safety.

5.2 Conclusion Baseo on the licensee's statement that they have reviewed their ttchnical specification requirements to identify any post maintenance '

testing wnich coulo be demonstrated to cegrace rather than enhance safety and found none that cegraded safety, we find the licensee's responses .

acceptacle.

b e

9 h

D e

  • 6

[,C.f' ' ' * * *

? "

    • ~,._. , , _ . , ,

_-, , _ _ . . , ,, ._ _ _ __ ... ,__...-.-_,y _ _ _, ._,,,.. ,, _ . _ _ _, , . , _ . r_ _

' ~

6. REVIEW RESULTS FOR ROBINSON UNIT 2 -

i l 6.1 Evaluation

! Carolina Power and Light Company, the licensee for Robinson,

" Unit No. 2, provided responses to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 7, Ic83. 0 In their response to Item 3.1.3, they state that the technical specifications do not contain any known requirements wnich degrade safety. Their response to Item 3.2.3 states that at the present time, no past testing requirements have been identified -

! wnich cegrade plant safety.

4 i

I 6.2 Conclusion i Tne licensee's responses to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 meet tne j requirements of Generic Letter 83-28 and are acceptable.

i i

r .

I 1

i i

1 4

~

r a

6

\*

3 4

e 7

q: .-- n.

t s .

1 4

7. REVIEW RESULTS FOR SUMMER UNIT 1 -
,_ 7.1 Evaluation l -

a ,

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, licensee for Summer, ,

Unit No.1, provideo a response to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic '

Letter 83-28 on November 4,1983.' The response to Item 3.1.3 states 1 that no changes to any post-maintenance testing requirements are required j at this time. Tne response to Item 3.2.3 is the same as that for j Item 3.1.3.

h 4

7.2 Conclusion 1

i The licensee's response to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 does not adoress the

) concerns of the generic letter and is not acceptable.

j . .

} The licensee should review the post-maintenance test requirements ,

contained in tneir technical specifications for the reactor trip system ano l! otner safety-relateo components and cetermine whether any current

^

j post-maintenance testing requirements may degrade rather than enhance

{ safety. If any current post-maintenance testing requirements are j icentified that may cegrade safety, the licensee shall identify them and j submit a schedule for the submission of proposed revisions.

,l .

4 1

i ,

i 1

i .

i l .

8 ,

I fp ,; . . .- . .,........,......n._ .. . . . . ,

1 1

8. GROUP CONCLUSION .

l

- With the exception of the response for the Summer. Unit No. I plant

t e

4 .

. 9

. .~ : '* .~. : =: .. : : -

--_1_-----_-_------__-___

' '~

9. REFERENCES .
1. NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors.

Applicants for Operating License, and Holders of Construction Permits.

"Recuired. 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, -

NUMts-luvu, volume 1 April t>bJ; volume z duty tycJ.

3. Letter, F. L. Clayton, Jr., Alabama Power Co. to S. A. Varga, NRC, November 4,1983.

4 Letter F. L. Clayton, Jr., Alassma Power Co. to S. A. Varga, NRC, Feeruary 6, 1984.

5. Letter, F. L. Clayton, Jr., Alabama Power Co. to S. A. Varga, NRC,

, February 15, 1984.

6. Letter, R. P. Mcdonald, Alabama Power Co. to S. A. Varga, NRC, April 22, 1985.
7. Letter, J. R. Williams, Jr., Florica Power and Light Co. to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 8, 1983. .
8. Letter, A. B. Cutter, Carolina Po.ver ano Lignt Co. to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC hovember 7, 1983. , ,
9. Letter O. W. Dixon, Jr., South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. to .

H. R. Denton, NRC, Novee.ber 4, 1983.

p I

e g' s O e

. l

- I

. . 10 -

. j .

1

1..g ~:. .~.. -

- - . . _ _ . -- _ _ _ --. _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20138J949&oldid=2866103"