ML20205R787
| ML20205R787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205R724 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704060444 | |
| Download: ML20205R787 (1) | |
Text
....
- ..a.w
- n za:a wz;.wwss.m.. :s,xu.a,1.., u=u.m a :. c.x acar;rysac;;r:m n.m=c.ri.u.
/
'c, UNITED STATES
[}
gi NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,. 4 WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 s. ~.... ;
SAFETY EVALUATI0f: PY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR EFACTOP PEGULATION CONCERNIhG GENERIC LFTTER 83-28 ITEM 4.5.2 REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABILITY, Ot-LINE TESTINC SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTPICT PANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENEPATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-312 INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
Generic Letter 83-28 was issued by NRC on July 8,1983, indicatino actions to be taken by applicants and licensees based on the generic implications of the Salem ATWS events.
Iterr d.5 states a staff pasition which requires on-line functional testing of the reactor trip system, including independent testing of the diverse trip features of the reactor trip breakers, for all plants.
Item 4.5.? requires applicants and licensees with plants not currently desianed to perrit this peri-odic on-line testing to justify not making modifications to permit such testino.
By letter dated November 4, 1983, the licensee, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, responded to the staff position regarding Item 4.5.? of Generic letter 83-28. Our review of this response finds it to be acceptable.
EVALUATION The licensee states that Sacramento Municipal Utility District performs or has comitted to make modifications to permit on-line testino of the reactor trip system, including independent testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments of the reactor trip breakers.
CONCLUSION The staff finds that the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station is desianed to permit on-line functional testing of the reactor trip system, including independent testing of the diverse trip features of the reactor' trip breakers.
Thus, the licensee meets the staff position of item 4.5.2 of Generic letter 83-28.
Contributer:
A. Toalston Date:
March 26,1987 g40gh p
P
.w
_.m.
..m.-
?
i EGG-NTA-7462 8
l TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT REACTCR TRIP SYSTEM RELIA 8I TY
}
CONFORMANCE.T0 i
ITEM 4.5.2 0F GENERIC LETTE 83-28 d
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ON 1
4 CRYSTAL RIVER-3 DAVIS-BESSE-1
.I OCONEE-1, -2 AN
-3
{
RANCHO SEC i
THREE MILE I AND-1 i
WNP-1 I
F G. Farmer 1
Published Marc 1987 Id o National Engineering L oratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the
[
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002 L
t 1
1
e EGG-NTA-7462 k
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABILITY CONFORMANCE TO ITEM 4.5.2 0F GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE-1 CRYSTAL RIVER-3 DAVIS-SESSE-1 OCONEE-1, -2 AND -3 RANCHO SECO THREE MILE ISLAND-1 WNP-1 F. G. Farmer Published March 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002 I
T703T5 M 'i &
IQ'y.
n.
.o I
I l
l l
ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals for j
Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) nuclear plants for conformance to Generic j
Letter 83-28, Item 4.5.2.
The report includes the following plants, all B&W, and is in partial fulfillment of the following TAC Nos.:
Plant Docket Number TAC Number
)
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 50-313 53960 Crystal River Unit 3 50-302 53974 Davis-Besse Unit 1 50-346 53975 Oconee Unit 1 50-269 54005 Oconee Unit 2 50-270 54006 Oconee Unit 3 50-287 54007 Rancho Seco 50-312 54019 J
Three Mile Island Unit 1 50-289 54034 WNP 1 (OL) 50-460 N/A e
i i
l l
I i
1
- I l
11 i
=.
.-_,.n..
.... =. _.. _..
c
?
t.
1 I
L l
i i
I k
3 FOREWORD
?
j This report is provided as part of the program for evaluating j
licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions i
Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Co nts."
This work is conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Of fice of Nuclear I
?
Reactor Regulation, Division of PWR Licensing-A by EG&G Idaho, Inc.
l The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissinn funded the work under the authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN Nos. D6001 and 06002.
4 l
I l
a l
P n
111 l
i l
p CONTENTS ABSTRACT.............................................................
11 i
FOREWORD.............................................................
iii 1.
INTRODUCTION.................................................
I f
i f
2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS............................................
2 3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS.........................................
4 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, Ur 5
4.1 Evaluation................................................
5 i,
j 4.2 Conclusion................................................
5 i
5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3.........................
6
{
5.1 Evaluation................................................
6 L
5.2 Conclusion................................................
6 r
I 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR DAVIS-BESSE UNIT 1...........................
7
)
J 6.1 Evaluation................................................
7 i
[
6.2 Conclusion..........................................
7
?,
l 7.
REV" RESULTS FOR OCONEE UNITS 1, 2 AND 3......................
8 s
l 7.1 Evaluation................................................
8 1
7.2 Conclusion................................................
8 8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR RANCHO SECO..................................
9
}
8.1 Evaluation................................................
9 i
8.2 Conclusion................................................
9 i
9.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 1.....................
10 9.1 Evaluation................................................
10 9.2 Conclusion................................................
10 I
i l
9 iv
g.
-n
.~.
n-
,i.
t.i 1
i 10.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR WNP 1 11 o
e 10.1 Evaluation............
11
(
h 10.2 Conclusion..
11 k$
11.
GROUP CONCLUSION..
12 M.j 12.
REFERENCES 13 1
S s
1
>?
9 3
"1 50 i4 1
i b
4
)
S j!!.
Kf a
a l
4(
9, f,
e
?
v
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABILITY CONFORMANCE TO ITEM 4.5.2 0F GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE-1 CRYSTAL RIVER-3 4
DAVIS-BESSE-1 OCONEE-1. -2 AND _3 l
RANCHO SECO THREE MILE ISLAND-1 WNP-1 i
1.
INTRODUCTION
/
On July 8, 1983 Generic Letter 83-28 was issued by D. G. Eisenhut.
Director of the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 4
Regulation, to 6:i 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-T000,
" Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant."
~
This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc., review of the submittals of all the B&W plants, including Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Crystal 4
River Unit 3, Davis-Besse Unit 1, Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, Rancho Seco, Three Mile Island Unit I and WNP 1 for conformance to Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-28. The submittals from the licensees utilized in these evaluations are referenced in Section 12 of this report.
l 2
a 5
1
~
2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS' l
Item 4'.5.2 (Reactor Trip System Reliability - System Functional Testing - On-Line Testing) requires licensees and applicants with plants not currently designed to permit on-line testing to justify not making
{
modifications to permit such testing. ' Alternatives to on-line testing will j
be considered where special circumstances exist and where the objective of high reliability can be met in another way.
Item 4.5.2 may be
({j interdependent with Item 4.5.3 when there is a need to justify not performing on-line testing because of the peculiarities of a particular design.
All portions of the Reactor Trip System that do not have on-line j
testing capability will be reviewed under the guidelines for this item.
Maintenance and testing of the Reactor Trip Breakers are also excluded from j
this review, as they are evaluated under Item 4.2.
This review of the licensee / applicant submittals will:
1.
Confirm that the licensee / applicant has identified those portions of the Reactor Trip System that are not on-line testable.
If the i
entire Reactor Trip System is verified to be on-line testable, no further review is required.
2.
Evaluate modifications proposed by licensees / applicants to permit
)
on-line testing against the existing criteria for the design of l
the protection systems for the plant being modified.
1 3.
Evaluate proposed alternatives to on-line testing of the Reactor Trip System for acceptability based on the following:
a.
The licensee / applicant submittal substantiates the g
impracticality of the modifications necessary to permit on-line testing, and i
l 2
b.
High Reactor Trip System availability (comparable to that which would be possible with on-line testing) is achieved in another way.
Any such proposed alternative must be described in detail sufficient to permit an independent 4
evaluation of the basis and analysis provided in lieu of performing on-line testing.
Methods that may be used to demonstrate that the objective of high reliability has been met may include the following:
1.
Demonstration by systematic analysis that testing at shutdown intervals provides essentially equivalent reliability to that obtained by on-line testing at shorter intervals.
it.
Demonstration that reliability equivalent to that obtained by on-line testing is accomplished by additional redundant and diverse components or by other features.
4 iii. Development of a maintenance program based on early replacement of critical components that compensates for the lack of on-line testing.
Such a program would require analytical justification supported by test data.
4 iv.
Development of a test program that compensates for the l
lack of on-line testing, e.g., one which uses trend analysis and identification of safety margins for 4
critical parameters of safety-related components.
Such a program would require analytical justification supported by test data.
4.
Verify the capability to perform independent on-line testing of the reactor trip system breaker undervoltage and shunt trip i
attachments on CE plants.
Information from licensees ~ and applicants with CE plants will be reviewed to verify that they require independent on-line testing of the reactor trip breaker undervoltage and shunt trip attachments.
3
w 3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS t
3 The relevant submittals from each of the B&W reactor plants were reviewed to determine compliance with Item 4.5.2.
First, the submittals j
from each plant were reviewed to establish that Item 4.5.2 was specifically I
addressed.
Second, the submittals were evaluated to determine the extent g
to which each of the B&W plants complies with the staff guidelines for f
Item 4.5.2.
J
?
I i
Ii i
0 l
l 5
3 f
i l
4
. _... - ~
~. -.
9 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 1 4.1 Evaluation Arkansas Power and Light Company ( AP&L), the license for Arkansas Nuclear One, provided their iesponse to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 5, 1983.
In that response, the licensee states that AP&L performs on-line testing of the Reactor Trip System, including independent testing of the shunt and undervoltage trip attachments.
4.2 Conclusion We find that the licensee's statement that they currently perform on-line testing of the RTS meets the staff position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter and is, we believe, acceptable.
~
A l
5 1
d 5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 i
it 5.1 Evaluation s
Florida Power Corporation (FPC), the licensee for Crystal River
]
Unit 3, responded to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 4, 1983.
]
In that response, the licensee states that FPC performs on-line testing of the Reactor Trip System, and that the RTS circuitry will be modified to i
permit independent on-line testing of the shunt and undervoltage trip attachments..
i j
5.2 Conclusion k
j We find that the licensee's statement that they currently perform on-line testing of the RTS and will modify the RTS circuitry to permit independent on-line testing of the shunt and undervoltage trip attachments 8
meets the staff position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter and is, we believe, acceptable.
3 i
a J
$i d
!?
4 i
i I
1 e
i Ee l
L
.)
i i
6 1
c- -
u.; i. ~.. w i. :..- a; u e
...mnr -
- z... : -:s'r., :.@tnw.u :;'
x..-
a:~..ai 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR DAVIS-BESSE UNIT l 6.1 Evaluation f
j.
Toledo Edison, the licensee for Davis-Besse Unit 1, responded to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on December 9, 1983.
In that response the licensee states that Davis-Besse i performs on-line testing to the Reactor 1
Trip System, with the exception of the SCRs.
It is not clear from the j
licensee's response that Davis-Besse I has the capability to perform independent on-line testing of the shunt and undervoltage trip attachments.
6.2 Conclusion We find that the licensee's statement that they currently perform on-line testing of the RTS meets the staff position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter and is, we believe, acceptable, provided the licensee confirms that Davis-Besse 1 has the capability to perform independent on-line testing of the shunt and undervoltage trip attachments.
l
~\\
7
__ -_--=
__---->-.u~..v.
.= m m 7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR OCONEE UNITS 1, 2 ANC 3 7.1 Evaluation u
t Duke power Company, the licensee for Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, responded to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 4, 1983.
In that response, the licensee states that Duke performs on-line testing of the j'
Reactor Trip System, and that the testing will include independent testing of the reactor trip breaker shunt ind undervoltage trip attachments.
t h
7.2 Conclusion i
f We find that the licensee's statement that they currently perform on-line testing of the RTS meets the staff position on Item 4.5.2 of the l
Generic Letter and is, we believe, acceptable.
I 3
ff
)
i t
e F
l i
e l
I i
)
N t
I i
8 C
...u.
..,,,.~:...
.a;,w
.-c
- 2 w.
w.,. me.m.w.c: m;;
x.
w.
J 8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR RANCHO SECO 8.1 Evaluation i
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), the licensee for Rancho Seco, provided a response to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on l
November 4, 1983.
In that response, the licensee states that SMUD performs, or has committed to make modifications to allow performance of, on-line testing of the Reactor Trip Sys' tem, including independent testing of the shunt and undervoltage trip attachments to the reactor trip breakers.
[
8.2 Conclusion I
i We find that the licensee's statement that they will have the capability to perform on-line testing of the RTS meets the staff position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter.
l l
9
4 9.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 1 9.1 Evaluation GPU Nuclear Corporation, the licensee for Three Mile Island Unit 1 (TMI-1), responded to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on j
November 8, 1983.
In that response, the licensee' states that GPU performs i
on-line testing of the Reactor Trip System,' including independent testing of the shunt and undervoltage trip attacnments to the reactor trip breakers.
9.2 Conclusion We find that the licensee's statement that they currently perform on-line testing of the RTS meets the staff position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter and is, we believe, acceptable.
4 i
l 1
}
6 1
- 1 l
2 i
B
?
l
)
1 1
.0 4
h{
10 1,
10.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR WNP 1 10.1 Evaluation i
i Washington Public Power Supply System, the applicant for WNP 1, responded to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on March 30, 1984.
In that f
response, the applicant states that the WNP 1 design will permit and that e
i WPPS will perform o-line testing of the Reactor Trip System.
i; 10.2 Conclusion We find that the applicant's statement that they will perform on-line testing of the RTS meets the staff position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic t
Letter and is, we believe, acceptable.
I.
i I
l e
i e
11
+
11.
GROUP CONCLUSION t
f We conclude that the licensee / applicant responses for the listed B&W plants for Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 are acceptable, with the
.j exception that Davis-Besse 1 must provide the confirmation addressed in the j
plant specific review.
.?
d.
J a
4 I
I d
aj h
N f
,i 4
)
1
,1 ii i
4 12
.m-
- 12. REFERENCES l
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 Saler., Nuclear Power Plant
[
NUREG-1000, Volume 1, April 1983; volume 2, July 1983.
3.
Arkansas Power and Light Company letter to NRC, J. R. Marshall to l,
D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, " Arkansas Nuclear One Response to Generic Letter 83-28," November 5, 1985.
4.
Florida Power Corporation letter to NRC, G. R. Westafer to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, " Crystal River
~
(t Unit 3 Response to Generic Letter 83-28," November 4, 1983.
5.
Toledo Edison letter to NRC, R. P. Crouse to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, December 9, 1983.
i 6.
Duke Power Company letter to NRC, H. 8. Tucker to H. R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, November 4, 1983.
?
7.
}
Sacramento Nunicipal Utility District letter to NRC, R. J. Rodriquez to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, " Required j
Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic h
Letter 83-28)," November 4, 1983.
l
)
8.
GPU Nuclear Corporation letter to NRC, H. D. h'ukill to C. G. Eisenhut, s
Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, " Required Actions Based on j
Generic Implications of Salem /ATWS Events," November 6, 1963.
i.
j 9.
Washington Public Power Supply System letter to NRC, G. C. Sorenson to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Nuclear Project Nc. 1 Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Salem ATWS Event," March 30, 1984.
l 3
)
G 9
13 1
.