ML20138K984
| ML20138K984 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Wolf Creek, Byron, Callaway, 05000000, Trojan |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1985 |
| From: | Vanderbeek R EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093440545 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 GL-83-28, TAC-53009, TAC-53052, TAC-53847, TAC-53891, TAC-55193, TAC-55203, TAC-56279, TAC-56281, TAC-57381, TAC-57383, NUDOCS 8510310097 | |
| Download: ML20138K984 (15) | |
Text
i CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 BYRON STATION, UNIT NO. 1 CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT NO. 1, INDIAN POINT, UNIT NO. 3 TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT, WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION
~
+
~
R. VanderBeek Published September 1985 i
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. 06001 g$ \\Ch\\ T 6 99 m
l ABSTRACT i
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
~
Byron 1 50-454 56279,56281
. Callaway 1 50-483 55193,55203
~
Indian Point 3 50-286 530 9,53847 Trojan 50-344 53052.,53891 Wolf Creek 50-482 57383,57381 i
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 conducted for the U.S. Nucle r 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, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN No. D6001.
e e
e G
e 11 J.
, CONTENTS ABSTRACT..............................................................
ii FOREWORD..............................................................
i'i e
1.
INTRODUCTION.....................................................
1 2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS..............................................
3 3.
GR OUP R EV I EW R E SU LTS.............................................
4 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR BYRON STATION UNIT NO 1.......................
6 4.1 Evaluation..................................................
6 4.2 Conclusion..................................................
6
~
5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR C ALLAWAY PLANT UNIT N0 1......................
7 5.1 Evaluation................................................'..
7 5.2 Conclusion..................................................
7 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR INDI AN POINT UNIT NO. 3.......................
8 i
6.1 Evaluation..................................................
8 6.2 Conclusion..................................................
8 -
7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT..........................
9 7.1 Evaluation..................................................
9 7.2 Conclusion..................................................
9 8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION.................
10 8.1 Evaluation..................................................
10 8.2 Conclusion..................................................
10 9.
GR O UP C ONC L U S I O N.................................................'11
- 10. REFERENCES.......................................................
12 TABLES Table l'...............................................................
~
'S I
-iii l
t l
I L
i CONFORMANCE.T0 GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 BYRON STATION UNIT NO. 1 CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT NO. 1
~~
INDIAN POINT UNIT NO. 3. TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT, WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 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 do(.uments the EG&G Idaho, Inc review of the submitt,als from Byron Station Unit No.1, Callaway Plant Unit No.1, Indian Point Unit No. 3, Trojan Nuclear Plant and Wolf Creek Generating Station, for conformance to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28. The submittals from the licensee utilized in these evaluations are referenced l
in Section 10 of this report.
These 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 Westinghouse-PWR reactors 2.
They utilize the Dry Containment. System 3.
They utilize two Class 1E Power System Trains 4.
They are four loop reactors.
~
5.
They use the Westinghouse Solid State Protection System l
1
=
m
1 i
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.
9
+
e i
I t
4 L
3 i
)
I 4
i J
i 1
4
~
l 1
l 1
a
)
}:
}
I t
e i
i a
I 2
l t
I r A _a j
,r.
,-m..
,,1,,.,
7.,m,-,
,.. ".7*.
,e-re -* * = - - - *'a v*w e m-*-7+*ee==-
"'-r-re F-v**N-e 7 - w --
T--
~
2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 3.1.3 (Post-Maintenance Testing of Reactor Trip System l
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 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 tnis action shall receive a pre-implementation review by NRC.
~
e O
e a
w e
O m
e 9
e e
~
3
~
lu
3.
GROU.P 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 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 by the technical specifications were identified that were suspected to degrade rather 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 tnis review are summarized for each plant in Table 1.
Only the responses from Byron Station Unit No. I and Indian Point Unit No. 3 indicated that there had been no items identified from the licensees' review of the technical specifications relating to post-maintenance testing that could be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety. However, the licensee gave no insight on the depth of review conducted on these two items.
The licensee's response for Callaway Plant Unit No.1, Trojan Nuclear Plant,-and Wolf Creek Generating Station did not address the concerns about
- - ; post-maintenance test requirements raised by Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.
S e
S l
l
'4 I
-w
i TABLE 1.
here Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 Aodressed Responses pl.nts in the submittal Licensee rindtnqi Acceptac,1e Comments Byron 1
~
Yes ko tech. spec. Items yes identified that cegrade safety Callaway 1 Yes No Concerns of Iteas 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 were not andressed.
Ina t... P ant 3 Yes No tech. spec. items Yes identified that oegrace safety Truj.n Yes No Concerns of Itees 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 were not andressed.
half Cre=a Yes No Concerns of Items 3.3.3 and 3.2.3 were not addressed.
a e
6 e
e 9
=
5
. ao..
4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR BYRON STATION UNIT NO. 1 4.1 Evaluation Commonwealth Edison, the licensee for Byron Station Unit No. 1, provided responses to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 5, 1983.
Within the responses, the licensee states that a review in conjunction with the NRC of the current revision of the standard technical specifications for Unit I has not identified any requirements that will degrade rather than enhance safety.
4.2 Conclusion l
W Based on the licensee's statement that they have reviewed their" technical specification requirements to identify any post maintenance testing which could be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety and found none that degraded safety, we find the licensee's responses acceptaole.
t o
}
b e
O e
9 e
6 o
e
'a+
=
- w*****
4 5.
REVIEW RESULTS F.0R CALLAWAY PLANT UNIT NO. 1 5.1 Evaluation Union Electric Company, the licensee for Callaway Plant Unit No.1 provided responses to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 18, 1983.4 Within the response, the licensee states that an NRC Task Force on Plant Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements has been recently chartered and represents the appropriate forum for addressing these sections. The SNUPPS utilities are also actively involved in a Technical Specification Optimization Program (TOP). This involvement and interface with the NRC task force will ensure that changes to the Technical Specifications are adequately addressed. This response does not address the concerns about post-maintenance test requirements raised by these two items.
5.2 Conclusion The licensee shall review the post-maintenance testing requirements contained in the technical specifications for the reactor trip system and other safety related components and determine whether any such current post-maintenance requirements may degrade rather than enhance safety. If any sucn current post-maintenance testing requirements are found tne licensee shall identify them and propose corrective Technical Specification changes. If no requirements are found to exist, then a statement to that effect should be submitted.
1
~ 7
6.
REVIEW RESULTS,FOR INDIAN POINT UNIT NO. 3 6.1 Evaluation New York Power Authority, the licensee for Indian Point Unit No. 3, provided responses to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on May 17, 1985.5 For Item 3.1.3, the licensee states that to date no post-maintenance testing which would degrade safety has been identified.
Currently, the Authority is reviewing, for plant specific applicability, the NRC SER on WCAP-10271, Supplement 1, " Evaluation of Surveillance Frequencies and Out of Service Times for the Reactor Protection Instrumentation Systems."
For Item 3.2.3, the licensee states that the Authority found none and aill continue to review and propose changes related to post-maintenance testing requirements when and if identified.
6.2 Conclusion Baseo on results of review of test and maintenance programs which did
~
not identify any post-maintenance testing that may degrade rather than enhance safety, we find the licensee's responses acceptable.
e k
b s
e 8
e 8
l
7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT 7.1 Evaluation 4
- Portland General Electric (PGE) Company, the licensee for the Trojan Nuclear Plant, provided responses for Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 4, 1983.6 Within the responses, the licensee states that no changes to Technical Specifications are being proposed at
~
this time. Portland General Electric (PGE) Company is participating in the Westingnouse Owners Group (WOG) program ~for reevaluation of Technical Specifications using the methodology in WCAP-10271, which was submitted to the NRC on February 3, 1983 and October 4, 1983. PGE may request changes to the Trojan Technical Specifications based on the results of this program. PGE supports the review of Technical Specifications initiated by the NRC Task Force. The licensee states that there may be Technical Specification surveillance requirements which degrade rather than ennance safety, they have not quantified such effects at this time. This response does not address the concerns about post-maintenance test requirements raised by these two items.
7.2 Conclusion The licensee shall review the post-maintenance testing requirements contained in the technical specifications for the reactor trip system and other safety related components and determine whether any such current post-maintenance requirements may degrade rather than enhance safety. If any such current post-maintenance testing requirements are found, the
~
licensee shall identify them and propose corrective Technica1 Specification changes. If no reonirements are found to exist, then a statement to that effect should be sucmitted.
I 9
i
~
v -.
..... -. ~
._,o.
8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION.
8.1 Evaluation j
Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E), the licensee for Wolf Creek Generating Station, provided responses for Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 15, 1983.
Within the responses, the licensee states that a hRC Task Force on Plant Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements has been recently chartered and represents the appropriate forum for addressing this section. KG&E is also actively involved in the Westinghouse Owners' Group (WOG) Technical Specification Optimization Program (TOP). This involvement and interface with the hRC Task Force, as exemplified in Letter 0G-103 dated 9/16/83 (WOG-NRC Task Force on Plant Technical Specifications), will ensure that changes to the Technical' Specifications are adequately addressed. This response does not address the concerns about post-maintenance test requirements raised by these two items.
8.2 Conclusion The licensee shall review the post-maintenance testing requirements contained in the technical specifications for the reactor trip system and other safety related components and determine whether any such current post-maintenance requirements may degrade rather than enhance safety. If any such current post-maintenance testing requirements are found, the licensee shall identify them and propose corrective Technical Specification changes. If no requirements are found to exist, then a statement to that effect should be submitted.
s e
0 4
i
~10 5
-~.
~
- ~
9.
GR0VP CONCLUSION The licensee responses for Byron Station, Unit No. I and Indian Point, Unit No. 3.were found acceptable by the staff. However, the staff found the licensee responses for Callaway Plant, Unit No.1, Trojan Nuclear Plant, and Wolf Creek Generating Station unacceptable.
e e
G e
9 e
gh e e
9 e
11
j
- 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.
Commonwealth Edison letter to NRC, P. L. Barnes to H. R. Denton, Director, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, "Dresden. Station Units 2 and 3. Quad Cities Station Units 1 and 2, Zion Station Units 1 ano 2 Lasalle County Station Units 1 and 2. Byron Station Units 1 and 2, Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28, NRC Docket hos. 50-237/249, 50-254/265, 50-295/304, 50-374/374, 50-454/455, and 50-45o/457," Novemoer 5, 1983.
4.
Union Electric Company letter to NRC, D. F. Schnell to H. R. Denton, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, " Docket No. 50-483, Union Electric Company, Callaway Plant Unit 1. Response to Generic Letter 83-28," November 18, 1983.
5.
New York Power Authority letter to NRC, J. C. Brons to S. A. Varga, Chief, Operating Reactor Branch No. 1, Division of Licensing, NRC,"
Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-286, Additional Information Regarding Generic Letter 83-28, Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of the Salem ATWS Events," May 17, 1985, IPN-85-26.
6.
Portland Genaral Electric letter to NRC, B. D. Withers to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, " Required actions Based on Generic implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," November 4, 1983.
7.
Kansas Gas and Electric Company letter to NRC, G. L. Koester to H. R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC,
" Response to Generic Letter 83-28," November 15, 1983.
t b
o e
12 g
n.,.
.s.,
.e-e e + e
_ _