ML20138Q059

Forwards SER & EG&G-NTA-7080 Re Util Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3 Concerning post-maint Testing. Responses Acceptable Based on NRC Review & Contractor Findings.Salp Input Also Encl

ML20138Q059
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	11/07/1985
From:	Houston R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8511140428
Download: ML20138Q059 (7)

Text

,-

, j%(L

, go- S.7 L so - D o I e

O CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 SALEM UNITS 1 Afl0 2 Ea { G - N TA - 7090 R. Haroldsen Published November 1985 EG&G Idahc nc.

' Idaho Falls, Idatio 83415 1

Prepared for the i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570

, FIN No. 6001 e -

hhfg b W

.- --g -

_e

i ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the'submittals for Salem Units 1 and 2 for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, . items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.

FORWARD 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. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of System Integration by EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRR and I&E Support Branch.

This U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN 06001.

Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311 TAC Nos. 53038, 53039, and 53878 e

11

CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................. ii

. FORWARD ............................................................... 11

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... I j 1

2. REVIEW RE0UIREMENTS .............................................. 2

3. REVIEW RESULTS FOR SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 ........................... 3 3.1 :Evalua? tion ................................................. 3 3.2 Conclusion ................................................. 3

4. REFERENCES ....................................................... 4 l

k

. iii

. ___ -. _. _ .... - . ~ . ~ . . , . . . . . _. . .

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 o

1. INTRODUCTION On July 8, 1983, Generic Letter No.83-28I 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."

This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals from Salem Units 1 and 2 for conformance to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28. The submittals and other documents utilized in this evaluation are referenced in Section 4 of this report.

e e

9 1

.__.~.

--- .- ,. _ .2... ..._m...-.-.._ . - .__.:._ u .. . ;. _ _ _ ._ 2. ~_ u

2. REVIEWREQti1REMENTS 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 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 this action shall receive a pre-implementation review by the NRC.

The relevant submittals from Salem Units 1 and 2 were reviewed to determine compliance with items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the generic letter.

First, the submittals from this plant were 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 significant information relating to the two items of concern.

k 2

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

3. REVIEW RESULTS FOR SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 3.1 Evaluation o

Public Service Electric and Gas Co., the licensee for Salem Units 1

, and 2, provided general responses to items 3.1 and 3.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 in their submittals' dated July 22, 19832 and 4

November 7, 1983 , but the concerns of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 were not specifically addressed until receipt of their later submittal dated September 20, 1985.5 In the last submittal, the licensee states that they have not found any post-maintenance testing requirements for either Reactor Trip System Components or other safety-related equipment that may degrade safety.

3.2 Conclusion The response from the licensee meets the requirements of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable.

k e

e 3

. . . -.m..._-.___

. . . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ u n _ . . . _: ag

.-*~~,

4. REFERENCES

'hRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, 1.

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, a NUREG-1000, Volume 1, April 1983; Volume 2, July 1983.

3. Letter, E. A. Liden, Public Service Electric and Gas Co. to S. A. Varga, NRC, July 22, 1983.

4. Letter, E. A. Liden, Public Service Electric and Gas Co. to ,

S. A. Varga, NRC, November 7, 1983. ,

5. Letter, C. A. McNeill, Jr., Public Service Electric and Gas Co. to S. A. Varga, NRC, September 20, 1985. ,

1 I

1 4

.. . . . . . . - . . . . - _ , . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . _ . . . _ .