ML20210K684
| ML20210K684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs, Palo Verde, Arkansas Nuclear, San Onofre, 05000000, Bailly |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1986 |
| From: | Vanderbeek R EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210K688 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-EA-6974, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8604290007 | |
| Download: ML20210K684 (12) | |
Text
,
EGG-EA-6974 I
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT NO. 2, CALVERT CLIFFS UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, PALO VERDE UNIT NOS.1, 2 AND 3 AND SAN ONOFRE UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 i
R. VanderBeek R. Haroldsen Pubitshed 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. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002
-,r,-
e
A8STRACT 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 reveiwed 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 2 50-368 52979,53817 Calvert Cliffs 1 50-317 52987,53825 Calvert Cliffs 2 50-318 52988,53826 50-528 59166,59168-Palo Verde 1
\\
Palo Verde 2 50-529 Palo Verde 3 50-530 San Onofre 2 50-361 53041,53881 San Onafre 3 50-362 53042,53882 FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the progr,'dm for evaluating licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 " Required Actions based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This work is being conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comiission, 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 Nos. 06001 and D6002.
{
~
i i l s
y O
m m
3 y
p
,,,.,y
---,+-+-w-,g
,,,=-*-n-
- w
--e
i i
r I
t l
CONTENTS l
11 ABSTRACT..............................................................
i 11 FOREW0RD..............................................................
i I
1.
INTRODUCTION.....................................................
2 2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS..............................................
i 3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS.............................................
2 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT 2...................
4 i
4 4.1 Evaluation.................................................
4.2 Conclusion.................................................
4 5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR CALVERT CLIFFS UNIT NOS. 1 and 2..............
5 5.1 Evaluation................................................
5 5.2 Conclusion.................................................
5 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PALO VERDE UNIT NOS. 1, 2 AND 3...............
6 r
6.1 Evaluation.................................................
6 6.2 Conclusion.................................................
6 l
7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SAN ONOFRE UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3..................
7 7.1 Evaluation.................................................
7 7.2 Conclusion.................................................
7 i
8.
GROUP CONCLUSION.................................................
8 i
9.
REFERENCES.......................................................
9 l
TABLES 1.
Table 1..........................................................
3 l
J
t O
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT NO. 2.
CALVERT CLIFFS UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2.
PALO VERDE UNIT NOS. 1. 2 AND 3 AND SAN ONOFRE UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 1.
INTRODUCTION 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".
This report documents the EG&G Idaho Inc. review of the submittals from Arkansas Nuclear One Unit No. 2 Calvert Cliffs Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Palo Verde Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and San Onofre Unit Nos. 2 and 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 9 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 CE-PWR reactors 2.
They utilize the TYPE 38 Containment and Pressure Suppression Systems 3.
They utilize two class 1E Power System Trains 4.
They have two loops.
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.
)
1
2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 3.1.3 (Post-Maintenance Testing of Reactor Trip System Components) rew ires 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 were checked to determine if any post-maintenance test items specified in 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 these reviews are summarized for i
each plant in Table 1.
The responses from Palo Verde Unit Nos.1, 2 and 3, Calvert Cliffs Unit Nos. 1 and 2, and Arkansas Unit No. 2 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.
The licensee for San Onofre Unit Nos. 2 and 3, did not address the issues of concern for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 in their initial submittal but a later response to a request for additional information provided the necessary information to resolve these concerns.
2
TABLE 1.
Were Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 Addressed Responses Plants in the Submittal Licensee Findings Acceptable Comments Arkansas 2 Yes No Tech. Sp... items Yes identified that degrade safety Calvert Cliffs'1 Yes No Tech. Spec iten Yes and 2 identified that degrade safety Palo Verde 1, 2 Yes No Tech. Spec. items Yes and 3 identified that degrade safety San Onofre 2 and 3 Yes
.No Post-maintenance Yes test items identified that degrade safety T
-+
s 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT h0. 2 4.1 Evaluation j
Arkansas Power and Light Co., licensee for the ANO-2 Nuclear Power Plant, provided a response to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 l
in their November 5, 1983 submittal.
In the submittal it is stated that they have not, to date, identified any technical specification surveillance requirements that degrade rather than enhance safety. They also made a j
commitment to continue evaluation of this concern.
4.2 Conclusion The licensee response meets the requirements of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3
~
and is accept'able to t'he staff.
4
5.
REVIEW RFSULTS FOR CALVERT CLIFFS UNIT NOS. 1 and 2 5.1 Evaluation Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (8G&E), the licensee for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, provided response to Item 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 in submittal dated November 5, 1983, Febr0ary 29, 1984 and March 21, 1986.
The first two submittals provided a discussion of functional surveillance testing rather than post-maintenance testing.
The staff concluded that the licensee's submittals were confusing the requirements of Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 which call for an evaluation of post-maintenance testing requirements contained within the technical specification, with the requirements of Items 4.5.3 which require an evaluation of the interv'ls of o'-line functi'onal testing.'
a n
The licensee was contacted to resolve the confusion regarding these similar but different issues. The problem was resolved by the licensee's March 21, 1986 submittal which states that the technical specification had been reviewed and no post-maintenance testing requirements were identified which were perceived to degrade rather than enhance safety.
l t
5.2 Conclusion I
The licensee's responses meet the requirements of Items 3.1.3 and l
3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 and are acceptable.
e i
t 3
i 5
j
O 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PALO VERDE UNIT NOS.1, 2 AND 3 t
6.1 Evaluation
)
i Arizona Public Service Company, the licensee / applicant for the Palo o
Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 3, 1983.7 Within the responses, the licensee's evaluation for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 I
is that, following a review of the technical specifications, no post-maintenance test requirements were identified for the reactor trip l
system or other safety-related components which tended to degrade rather than enhance plant safety.
i l
~
6.2 Conclusion j
Based on the licensee's statement that'they have reviewed their technical specification requirements to identify any post maintenance f
l testing which could be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety i
and found none that degraded safety, we find the licensee's responses acceptable.
i 1
i i
I 1
6 i
I l
7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SAN ONOFRE UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 7.1 Evaluaum
~
i Southern California Edison Company, the licensee for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3, provided an initial response to item 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 29, 1983.
Within the response the licensee states that the semi-annual subgroup relay testing i
requirements specified in the technical specification Table 4.3-2 are perceived to degrade rather than enhance safety. The staff believes that
,this is routine surveillance testing which is not included in the class of post-maintenance testing and will be addressed under the Technical J
Specification Improvement Program. The licensee provided an appropriate l
change with supporting justification under change NPF-10-4 in Amendment
~
Application No. 8, dated'luly 23, 1982.
The initial response did not provide a sufficient basis for evaluating compliance with the requirements of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.
A request for additional information was directed to the licensee (December 13, 1985).
The licensee responded with a submittal dated March 25, 1986.'
In the submittal the licensee confirmed that the review of the technical specification had been completed and that no post-maintenance test requirements had been identified that degrades safety other than the item previously mentioned.
7.2 Conclusion 3
Based on the licensee's submittal we find that the licensee's response ineets the requirements of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of generic letter 83-28 and is acceptable.
7
o 8.
GROUP CONCLUSION The staff concludes in this revised report that the licensees' responses fortkansas Nuclear One Unit 2, Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2 Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3 and San Onof re Units 2 and 3 for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 are acceptable.
i l
e J
i i
e i
1 f
I i
8
e.
9.
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 retter 83-28)", July 8, 1983.
2.
Generic Implications of ATWS Events at._he Salem Nuclear Power Plant, t
NUREG-1000, Volume 1, April 1983; Volume 2, July 1983.
3.
Arkansas Power & Light Company letter to NRC, J. R. Marshall to D. G. Eisenhut Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, " Arkansas Nuclear One--Units 1 and 2, Dockets 50-313 and 50-368, License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6, Response to Generic Letter 83-28 Salem ATWS Event," November 5, 1983.
4.
Baltimore Gas and Electric letter to NRC, A. E. Lundvall, Jr. to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing..NRC, "Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Generic Letter 83-28; Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events", November 5,1983.
~
5.
Baltimore Gas and Electric letter to NRC, A. E. Lundvall, Jr. to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, "Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Docket Nos. ;0-317 and 50-318, Generic Letter 83-28, Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," February 29, 1984.
6.
Baltimore Gas and Electric letter to NRC, J. A. Tirenan to A. C. Thadani, March 21, 1986.
7.
Arizona Public Service Company to NRC, E. G. VanBrunt Jr. to G. Knighton, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, NRC, "Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Units 1, 2 and 3, Docket Nos. STN-50-528/529/530, File:
83-056-026; G.1.01.10" November 3, 1983, ANPP-28167-WFQ/TFQ.
8.
Southern California Edison Company letter to NRC, F. R. Nandy to G. W. Knighton, Chief. Licensing Branch No. 3, NRC, " Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, Response to Generic Letter 83-28, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3," November 29, 1983.
9.
Southern California Edison Company letter to NRC, M. O. Medford to G. W. Knighton, " Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3," March 25,1986.
t 9
n
,,