ML20197C602

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3,St Lucie Units 1 & 2 & Waterford Unit 3

ML20197C602
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie, Waterford, 05000000
Issue date:	04/30/1986
From:	Vanderbeek R EG&G IDAHO, INC.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20197C606	List: ML20197C602 ML20198C538 ML20198C554
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-EA-6976, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8605130476
Download: ML20197C602 (12)

Text

g jih Q9Ni epm P g

h M g hpSer g % Q p. Q ssl & eis ua 1.s 3. g, "v.. +.ea%. v.

s, .

~.,.r.., % ..>J.w 7 :r .:

. u ~.m.%,

.- n.m.

M,@w w@@ h

,n 1.-

~

.g.m $m%m.~@$@5i .

.,7:M,L E. . JJ

,*F ., x a EGG-EA-6976 April 1986

• p .

w . , n .s e ,-ns . w;g?q . Ag 1" - * .- O , y - .

g 3W.-.ye.g w.m,

. .+ .

.%  ;- .  %. R INFORMAL REPORT a .

.y.., . . m ;a p a,, y/

~.e... c. y ? . %m. %m/,..s r ,

1 7 ,

o w*, ,. x - c- e. .n 1 m . y v v;;c .

w u r e w p.h .%. ., -

< 'r# * -

d M t[ W R $_ O $r l U B h 0 2 N M R W gggfajjay"+**"** m 7"h/dM/p L;qA .p =

h . - - e . Sgt CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 82-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3, M4?f 9@ff%g- . ..EST. LUCIE UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2

rM._T.M,... N. t . . - * .WATERNFORD UNIT NO. 3 Ca M. % r t w m # A.yA .-wh.,.e.pgx, m, A,

% .e many

, n w ,:; >3. ~ .. .. m:aymh -

k(DppartmegLa__ .

mem,, .

. . 4 _,

erho/EnegyhhAaae% , _ ,R VanderBeek/R. Haroldsen i

. w- ~.n .

w va -

%. y2w C;; 2.t.wf vm3 e., ' - -

. p.

wa s. am .w.mm .w .

w i

. m,,

.z~,.,.., w,~.v.%.m "'

fw.:n.m.

%n :. ~ 3.ws.w.m - .,

i.. ; ,

c

'.w s$w%'; ~ ,- . . .

T .  ;; ?C:b: l b . .-. l i, ~ ,

e sut+rm.cw

, . .n.j.n . ,- . , . mm

. s

. ,,w.- M .- ..._

.~ ,

y N& s ,s  %'.,,,8 ^ *N  ? r )'l

• C 15_ 1u \

(, -. ,

,. ,p < g w 4, ,

s k - ,, . Y. d'.DMd .1 4 .h ,o

.m . . . .; .

' C' . ,- ^

, v!y. ... :wv n .+ - - -

r. m, g~ x a ,:,1 e .. s

. . u ,

t F *. AL - y .

j*mC.# m,3.< c'A

,w,x  % ~.-~,g

~ - .

nw.

Wi L, ..c. .- t ,

fy~,6S.we 6 UdL* V1,gQg n , ,_. , ,

y .

y? . 6 y; : , * .

t tW. .. m%yw r

..^....e s, ?.i- Tg.e'f.- ) .~.-i ',

. f ,' ,

, ., s -. . . - -

- i.

>~ a i,yg%.% m, .' s l

mu - 7. .; , }, ,n, , .

n -

Q.c,W,,*.m .z = n..,:rmy n m.w ,,at- -

. M. up .

'$i'.* ea .-

n

. n $ Q*;* .g,( P E. My ,2[:}++Qhm) .j}<4emQG.ZWQM-@, 4 .

, .~n, j ,, ._& . 3;%lw.~....a*#)e t'j m - l" ) T

~

.y

%s 'y,,,,,f.) g > m.g .. rp a. %g g%,9 .

a eM~ES Prepared for the M, m. w@ a , x m. .:s E ;;. NwpO y ,

WWW:My.614 m . g w e,.e,,,, ;.@m, gh 11. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l fM,w &:;i;7006 Coneecen y% ^Y' "*Q mgl: -

.w .

=

i

.M.

.; .,e m .p

. O$a$id NmlDC-AC07-MGNGQ Q- +D* 6.-,I.YdjMk.p.#. y>.h' .

. s.7. /d.% y .

M.%:k <

Y y

- rM

• i O{*;n MY n n['*Q,IthN *@ _3 kk Ny' p3-+ cy4

. v,m

v ; y"+,*<,s.m,,,,y<,:M  ? J, u.

n e i a.

VdM c *r.qS:W r y"h 1.v.

• o m, y.

to w as .

~

%) Uk k d A a ls L u WM; .,

i1f;@pjfin.WiQ9.

Or u ,s #-- -

a ',

ry , g , y; # V

. . M.b y g i .,

n.

' g, y W-E ~ M ~ " s.

g ,

7 4W i,. 4: pig .i W . Qhfh. PpmWr WWp m%,ug . w. , u p, g

. 5

,r nu . ~ , -

_a:_._.c___

__ __.._.__- .c

EGG-EA-6976 ,

~.

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 .

ST. LUCIE UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3

.. R. VanderBeek/R. Haroidsen Published April 1986 EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. OE-AC07-76IO01570 FIN No. 06001

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 St. Lucie 1 50-335 53048, 53884 St. Lucie 2 50-389 53049, 53885 Waterford 3 50-382 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. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear

. Reactor Regulation, Division of PWR Licensing-A by EG&G Idaho, Inc.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, . FIN No. D6001.

i e i

1 e

-- ---.n.- -

--,-----.--.._r-------,---. ,--, . . , _ - . , , . , , < - ww,, , , , , - _ - . - . . - --, ---.,,_-,e , , . . . . . , _ - . ,-

CONTENTS A8STRACT .............................................................. ii FOREWORD .............................................................. 11

+

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1

2. REVIEW REQUIRENENTS .............................................. 2

3. GROUP REVIEW RESULTS ............................................. 2

4. REVIEW RESULTS FOR ST. LUCIE UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 ................... 4 4.1 Evaluation ................................................. 4 4.2 Conclusion ................................................. 4 .

5. REVIEW RESULTS FOR WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 .......................... 5 5.1 Evaluation ................................................. 5 5.2 Conclusion ................................................. 5

6. GROUP CONCLUSION ................................................. 6

7. REFERENCES ....................................................... 7

. TABLES

1. Table 1 .......................................................... 3

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ,

ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 ST. LUCIE UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2. WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3

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 St. Lucie Unit Nos. 1 and 2 and Waterford Unit No. 3 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 identified because of their similarity. These plants are similar in the following respects:

1. They are operating CE-PWR reactors

2. They utilize the TYPE 2E Containment and Pressure Suppression

, Systems

3. They utilize two class 1E Power System Trains

4. They nave two loops.

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

- -- ---,,,-.---,m,---a, -

r--- - , - , - - ----r r , g vr r m- - c-- - - - g-, -w-- ,,--- - ---

2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS .

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 NRC.

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 were reviewed to determine that these two items were specifically addressed. Second, the submittals 0

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. The results of these reviews are sununarized for each plant in Table 1.

All of the responses indicated that no items had been identified from the licensees' review of the technical specifications relatirig to post-maintenance testing that could be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety.

The licensee's initial response for Waterford SES Unit No. 3, did not 3 address the issue of item 3.2.3. A subsequent submittal dated November 15, 1985 provided the missing information which permitted reissue

. of this report in final form.

2

TAllLE 1. .

Were Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 Addressed Responses Plants in the Submittal Licensee Findings Acceptable Cnements St. Lucie I and 2 Yes No tech spec. items Yes --

identified that '

degrade safety Waterford 3 Yes No tech. spec items Yes identified that degrade safety ,

9

4. REVIEW RESULTS FOR ST. LUCIE UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 ,

4.1 Evaluation Florida Power & Light Company, the licensee for St. Lucie Unit Nos. I and 2, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 8, 1983. Within the responses, the licensee's evaluation for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 is that, following a review of the technical specifications, no post-maintenance test requirements were identified for the reactor trip system or other safety-related components which tended to degrade rather than enhance plant safety.

4.2 Conclusion 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 acceptable.

t 9

e 4

5. REVIEW RESUL1S FOR WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 ,

5.1 Evaluation Louisiana Power & Light (LP&L), the licensee for Waterford SES Unit No. 3, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 4, 1983.4 Within this response, the licensee stated for item 3.1.3 that they are reviewing their existing technical specifications ,

to determine if any reactor trip system post-maintenance test requirements could possibly degrade rather than enhance safety. The statement of compliance for item 3.1.3 was scheduled to be submitted March 1, 1984 and for item 3.2.3 November 1985. In LP&L's March 5, 1984 submittal, the ,

itcensee's evaluation for item 3.1.3 is that, following a review of their technical specifications, no post-maintenance test requirements were identified for the reactor trip system components which tended to degrade rather than enhance safety. The licensee's response dated November 15, 6

1985 concluded that there are no post-maintenance test requirements that

, degrade rather than enhance safety.

5.2 Conclusion B'ased on the licensee's statement that they have reviewed their technical specifications for post-maintenance testing that could degrade rather than enhance safety and found none that degraded safety, we find the licensees' responses for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 acceptable.

t a

5

6. GROUP CONCLUSION ,

The staff concludes the licensees' responses for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 are acceptable.

e e

't e

6

7. 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 Imolications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, NUREG-1000, Vo'une 1, April 1983; Volume 2. July 1983.

3. Florida Power & Light letter to NRC, J. W. Williams Jr. to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, "St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, Occket Nos. 50-335, 50-389, Generic Letter 83-28,"

November 8, 1983 L-83-554.

4. Louisiana Power & Light letter to NRC, K. W. Cook to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, "Waterford SES Unit 3, Docket No. 50-382, Generic Letter 83-28, Required Actions Based on Generic .

Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 4, 1983, W3P83-3911 Q-3-A20.02.02, 3-A1.01.04, L.02.

5. Louisiana Power & Light letter to NRC, K. W. Cook to G. W. Knighton, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, NRC, "Waterford SES Unit 3, Docket No. 50-382, Response to Generic Letter 83-28, item 3.1 Post Maintenance Testing (Reactor Trip System Components)" March 5, 1984, W3P84-0601, 3-A1.01.04, Q-3-A20.02.02, L.02

6. Louisiana Power and Light letter to NRC, K. W. Cook to G. W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 NRC, "Waterford SES Unit 3, Docket

. No. 50-382 Licensing Condition No. 13" November 15, 1985 W3P85-3158, A 4.05, NQA.

4 7

v a ma.. . ..uuro., -. . uo- w .~ ra - ~ . -

(244

',,"*"E

. BISUC, GRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-EA-6976 n r.ucT,o o r . ..v .a

& HrLS... L 8rarLa & 68AvtSL..a Conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, ' o ' a "c " = ="' o St. Lucie Unit Nos. 1 and 2, -o.r- i Waterford Unit No. 3 April '

1986

',' . .u r %....

e s.ri ucar swao R. Vander8eek/R. Haroldsen Wo.rM vt..

April I 1986

,....... o 4r.o . . .u .oo.. ., <.c .,o..crw w.=u.rw u.

EG8G Idaho, Inc. '''''''"""

Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6001

,o.,o o.. o....,4.r.o ..... ...m.o.oo..n., <.c n.n,.o .pou e n a aluadon Repod Division of PWR - Licensing - A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation . ....co co ...o .: -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 t15W,'t4MGNr..V ort $

1& .48T..cf fJM apera, er a.s i This EG8G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals for St. Lucie Unit Nos.1 and 2, Waterford Unit No. 3 for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.

3

'l i

I l

l

,. :cc.we r . . .s. . . .a monos.s sca..vens l

• y,*g'y,"

' Limited

[

Distribution l- '4 58hattv '" SS.. C*t0V UnclasGified

! . :os%f .e.secetw e.:ss etows r..,.-

l Unciassified

,, m ..%, ..c n l

ie ...ca I

l s

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