ML20209F815
| ML20209F815 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Arkansas Nuclear, Crystal River, Rancho Seco, 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1985 |
| From: | Haroldsen R EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209F819 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 GL-83-28, TAC-52978, TAC-52992, TAC-53022, TAC-53023, TAC-53024, TAC-53036, TAC-53051, TAC-53816, TAC-53830, TAC-53861, TAC-53862, TAC-53863, TAC-53875, TAC-53890, NUDOCS 8507120552 | |
| Download: ML20209F815 (15) | |
Text
.
6
- -.Q s
I CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3-ARKANSAS 1 CRYSTAL RIVER 3. OCONEE 1, 2, AND 3 RANCHO SECO AND TMI-l 4
emme R. Haroldsen 1
1 f
Published Jure 1985 4
J EG4G Idaho, Inc.
i t
r Prepared for the l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 j
Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001F70 FIN No. 06001
&'507 /.2 oSM M
ABSTRACT Tnis EG&G Icaho, Inc. report provides a revi,ew 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 reviewed were selected 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 Arkansas 1 50-313 52978, 53816' Crystal River 3 50-302 52992, 53830 Oconee 1 50-269 53022, 53861 Oconee 2 50-270 53023, 53862.
Oconee 3 50-287 53024, 53863 Rancho Se.co 50-312 53036, 53675 TMI-l 50-289 53051, 53890 FOREWORD This report is supplied as part ot.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., 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.
CONTENTS A,B_S T R A C T...................................... :.......................
ii FOREWORD..............................................................
ii 1.
INTRODULTION.....................................................
1 2.
REVIEW REQUIREKENTS..............................................
3 3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS.............................................
4 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ARKANSAS 1....................................
6 4.1 Evaluation.................................................
6 4.2 Conclusion.................................................
6 5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR CRYSTAL RIVER 3...............................
7 5.1 Evaluation.................................................
7 5.2 Conclusion.................................................
7 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR OCONEE 1, 2, AND 3............................
S 6.1 Evaluation................................................
8 6.2 Conclusion.................................................
8 7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR RANCHO SECO...................................
9 7.1 Evaluation.................................................
9 7.2 Conclusion.................................................
9 8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR TMI-l.........................................
10 8.1 Evaluation.................................................
10 8.2 Conclusion.................................................
10 9.
GROUP CONCLUSIONS................................................
11
- 10. REFEREhCES.......................................................
12 TABLES Table 1...............................................................
5 iii
CONFORMANCETOGEQCRICLETTER83-28 ITEMS 3.l.3 AND 3.2.3 ARKANSAS 1, CRYSTAL RIVER 3, OC0 HEE 1, 2, AND 3, RANCHO SECO AND TMI 1 -
4 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 Reactnr Regulation, to all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for operating licenses, and holders of construction permits. This letter included required actions baseo on generic implications of the Salem ATWS events. These requirements have been published in Volume f._of NUREG-1000,
" Generic Implications of AThS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant".2 This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals from the Arkansas 1, Crystal River 3, Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Rancho Seco and TMI 1 plants for conformance to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic
.1etter 83-28.
Tne suomittals from tne licensees uti71 zed in these evaluations are referenceo in section 10 of this report.
These generic 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 B&W reactors 2.
Tney utilize the type 3B containment system 3.
They are 2 loop plants 4.
Tney utilize 2 emergency aiesel generators except tne Oconee plants that utilize alternate hydro-power units for emergency power 1
5.
They utilize two class IE power trains except the Oconee plants that utilize three Class IE power trains 6.
TheyutilizeAK-2reactoriripbreakers'.
Ar. Item of concern icentified for any one of these plants is assumed to oe potentially significant for all of the plants in the group.
M i
e o
f e
+
2
j 2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 3.1.3 (Post-Maintenance Testing of Reattor Trip System (RTS)
Components) requires that licensees and applicants icentify, if applicable, any post-maintenance test requirements for tne RTS in existing technical specifications which can be cemonstrated to degrade rather than enhance' safety.
Item a.2.3 extends this same requirement to include all other safety-related components. Any proposed technical specification changes resulting from this action snall rective a pre-implementation review by NRC.
be i
h 9
l 4
l 3
3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS
- --- The B&W Owners Group submitted.a response dated November 9,1983 to Generic Letter 83-28.3 This response states tnat the owners group, af ter considerable review and discussion, concluded that plant-specific differences precluded a generic program for resolving items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.
The relevant submittals from each of the named reactor plants were reviewed to cetermine compliance with items 3.1.3 ano 3.2.3 of the Generic Letter.
First, the submittals from each plant were reviewed to determine that these two items were specifically aooressed. Second, the submittals were checkeo to determine if there were any post-maintenance test items specifiedbythetechnicalspecificationsthatweresuspedt'edtodegrade
.rather than enhance sa e y.
Last, the submittals were reviewed for ft evioence of special conoitions or other significant information relating to the two items of concern. The results of this review are summarized for each plant in Table 1.
4 e
0 e
4
l 1ABLE 1.
1 Were items 3.1.3 anel 3.2.3 andressed
Response
plants
___ in siihmi t ta l Licensen Findings Acceptable Comments Arkansas 1 Yes No tech spec items tIiat Yes Depth of review not degrade safety identified--evaluation to continue Crystal River 3 Yes No post-test tech spec Yes Re' view will continue items identified that degrade safety Oconee 1,2 & 3 Yes No tech spec items Yes identified that degrade safety Rancho Seco Yes items addresscal but no No l
findings or conc 1nsions 1H Yes To date no itens Yes identifled that degrade safety 1
l 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ARKANSAS UNIT 1 4.1 Evaluation Arkansas Power and Light Co., licensee for the ANO-1 Nuclear Power Plant, provideo a response to items 3.1.3 ano 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 in their November 5, 1983 submittal.4 In the submittal it is stated that they have not, to cate, icentified any technical specification surveillance requirements that degrace rather than enhance safety. They also made a commitment to continue evaluation of this concern.
4.2 Conclusion Tne licensee response meets the requirements of items 3.1.3 ano 3.2.3 ano is acceptable to the sta'ff.
m I
6
5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3
~ ~ ~ ~
5.1 Evaluation -
Florica Power Corporation, licensee for the Crystal River Unit 3, proviceo a response to items 3.1.3 ano 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 in-5 6
their November 4,1983 and July 31, 1984 submittals.
In the submittals they state that no post-maintenance test requirements have been identifieo that degrade safety. They further state that review is ongoing ano any items subsequently identified will be mace known to the NRC by way of a request for change in the technical specifications.
5.2 Conclusion The licensee statement that no post-maintenance test requirements have been identifieo that degrade safety and the commitment for continuing review meets the requirements for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 and is acceptable to the staff.
O 7
l
1 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR OCONEE UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 6.1 Evaluation -
Duke Power Co., licensee for the Oconee nuclear plants, states in 7
tneir November 4,1983 submitta1 that to the best of their knowledge, the Oconee technical specifications do not contain test requirements that can be oemonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety. The depth of review supporting this statement is not revealed in the submittal.
6.2 Conclusion The licensee statement that no test requirements havheen identified in the technical specifications that degrade safety meets the requirements
- of item 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 and is acceptable to the staff.
e l
e j
1 8
7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR RANCHO SECO
---~
~
7.1 Evaluation The Sacramento Municipal Utility District, licensee for the Rancho Seco nuclear plant addressed items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 in their response to 8
Generic Letter 83-28, dated November 4,1983 but dio not state any conclusions. They oid, however, make a commitment to remain alert for oeleterious technical specification test requirements.
7.2 Conclusion The licensee response to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 is not sufficiently complete to oetermine compliance. These items will be hela open pending receipt and assessment of in. formation responsive to these concerns.
e e
e l
l 9
t 8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR TMI-1
~~~
8.1 Evaluation The GPU kuclear Co., licensee for TMI-1, providec a response to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 in their hovember 8, 1983 submittal.10 They reported that to date, tney have not ioentifieo any post-maintenance test requirements in existing technical specifications which could be i
demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety.
8.2 Conclusion The licensee statement meets' the requirements for thise items of the Generic Letter and is acceptable to the staff.
9
=
l i
e t
'l 4
10
~
9.
GROUP CONCLUSION With the exception of Rancho Seco the staff, concludes that the licensee responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 are adequate and acceptable.
O e
S e
11
- 10. REFERENCES 1.
hRC Letter, D. 6. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating License, ano Holders of Construction Permits,
' ~~
"Requirec Actions Based on beneric Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)", July 8, 1983.
2.
Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem huclear Power Plant, NUREG-1000 Volume 1. April 1983; Volume 2 July 1983.
3.
B&W Owners Group Response to Generic Letter 83-28 by 8&W Owners Group ATwS Committee, November 4, 1983.
4.
Letter, J. R. Marshal, Arkansas Power a' d Light Co., to n
D. G. Eisennut, NRC, November 5, 1983.
5.
Letter, G. R. Westafer, Florida Power Corp, to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 4,1983.
w_
6.
Letter, G. R. Westafer, Florida Power Corp., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, July 7, 1984.
7.
Letter, H. B. Tucker, Duke Power Co. to H. R. Denton, NRC, November 4, 1983.
8.
Letter, R. J. Rodriguez, Sacramentc Municipal Power District to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 4, 1983.
9.
Letter, R. J. Rocriguez, Sacramenio Municipal Power District, to J. F. Stolz, NRC, October 5, 1984.
- 10. Letter, H. D. Hukill, GPU Nuclear Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, November 8,1983.
- 11. Letter, H. D. Hukill, GPU Nuclear Co., to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, February 1, 1984.
12