ML20210Q448
| ML20210Q448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Calvert Cliffs, Palisades, Palo Verde, Saint Lucie, Arkansas Nuclear, Waterford, San Onofre, Maine Yankee, Fort Calhoun, 05000000, Satsop |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1987 |
| From: | Farmer F EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210Q453 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001, CON-FIN-D-6002 EGG-NTA-7463, GL-83-28, TAC-53961, TAC-53969, TAC-53970, TAC-53983, TAC-53996, TAC-54000, TAC-54009, TAC-54024, TAC-54025, TAC-54028, TAC-54029, TAC-57710, TAC-59173, NUDOCS 8702170161 | |
| Download: ML20210Q448 (23) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e EGG-NTA-7463 s
t TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABILITY CONFORMANCE TO ITEM 4.5.2 OF GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 CALVERT CLIFFS UNITS 1 AND 2 FT. CALHOUN MAINE YANKEE MILLSTONE UNIT 2 PALISADES PALO VERDE UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 SAN ONOFRE UNITS 2 AND 3 ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 AND 2 WATERFORD SES UNIT 3 WNP 3 F.
G. Farmer Published January 9, 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, I n'c.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761D01570 FIN Nos. D6001 and D6002
} g l~l[/)
ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals for Combustion Engineering (CE) nuclear plants for conformance to Generic LGtter 83-28, Item 4.5.2.
The report includes the following plants, all CE, cnd is in partial fulfillment of the following TAC Nos.:
- Plent Docket Number TAC Number Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 50-368 53961 Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 50-317 53969 Cc1 vert Cliffs Unit 2 50-318 53970 Ft. Calhoun 50-285 53983 Maine Yankee 50-309 53996 Millstone Unit 2 50-336 54000 l
Polisades 50-255 54009 Polo Verde Unit 1 50-528 59173 Polo Verde Unit 2 (OL) 50-529 N/A Polo Verde Unit 3 (OL) 50-530 N/A l
Scn Onofre Unit 2 50-361 54024 l
Srn Onofre Unit 3 50-362 54025 i
St. Lucie Unit 1 50-335 54028 St. Lucie Unit 2 50-389 54029 Waterford SES Unit 3 (OL) 50-382 57710 WNP 3 (OL) 50-508 N/A l
l ii 4
FOREWORD This report is provided as part of the program for evaluating licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions Dcsed on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events."
This work is conducted for the U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor R;gulation, Division of PWR Licensing-A by EG&G Idaho, Inc.
The U.
S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission funded the work under the cuthorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN Nos. D6001 and D6002.
}
k 1
i l
l l
l 1ii l
l
CONTENTS ABSTRACT.............................................................
ii FOREWORD.............................................................
iii 1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................
1 2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.............................................
2 3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS............................................
5 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2.................
6 4.1 Evaluation................................................
6 4.2 Conclusion................................................
6 5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR CALVERT CLIFFS UNITS 1 AND 2.................
7 5.1 Evaluation................................................
7 5.2 Conclusion................................................
7 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR FT. CALHOUN..................................
8 6.1 Evaluation................................................
8 6.2 Conclusion................................................
8 7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR MAINE YANKEE.................................
9 l
7.1 Evaluation................................................
9 7.2 Conclusion................................................
9 8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR MILLSTONE UNIT 2..............................
10 i
8.1 Evaluation................................................
10 0
8.2 Conclusion................................................
10 l
i 9.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PALISADES....................................
11 l
l 9.1 Evaluation................................................
11 1
9.2 Conclusion................................................
11 l
l 10.
REVIEW RESULTS FDR PALO VERDE UNITS 1, 2 AND 3..................
12 10.1 Evaluation................................................
12 l
10.2 Conclusion................................................
12 r
l i
iv l
t
11.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SAN ONOFRE UNITS 2 AND 3.....................
13 11.1 Evaluation...............................................
13 11.2 Conclusion................................................
13 12.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 AND 2......................
14 12.1 Evaluation 14 12.2 Conclusion 14 13.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR WATERFORD SES UNIT 3.........................
15 13.1 Evaluation................................................
15 13.2 Conclusion 15 14.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR WNP 3........................................
16 14.1 Evaluation 16 t
14.2 Conclusion................................................
16 i
15.
GROUP CONCLUSION................................................
17 16.
REFERENCES......................................................
18 4
i s
b v
4 i
4 I
r -e gm,-ww.--,,m,
-w.-,-,.
,e,
--.-r--,
.r--,m,,-.,--~w--,.-.y w.-
- - + - - -.
w
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABILITY CONFORMANCE TO ITEM 4.5.2 OF GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT 2 CALVERT CLIFFS UNITS 1 AND 2 FT. CALHOUN MAINE YANKEE MILLSTONE UNIT 2 PALISADES l
PALO VERDE UNITS
1.
INTRODUCTION On July 8, 1983, Generic Letter 83-285 was issued by I. G. Eisenhut, Director of the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, i
l to all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for operating licenses, cnd holders of construction permits.
This letter included req'uired actions j
bcsed 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."*
3 This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals of cil the CE plants including Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Calvert Cliffs Ur.its 1 and 2, Ft. Calhoun, Maine Yankee, Millstone Unit 2, Palisades, Palo Vcrde Units 1, 2 and 3, San Onofre Units 2 and 3, St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, Waterford SES Unit 3 and WNP 3 for conformance to Item 4.5.2 of Generic Lotter 83-28.
The submittals from the licensees utilized in these ovaluations are referenced in Section 16 of this report.
1
2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 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 b2 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 p;rforming on-line testing because of the peculiarities of a particular dssign.
All portions of the Reactor Trip System that do not have on-line tcsting capability will be reviewed under the guidelines for this item.
However, the existence of on-line testability for the Reactor Trip Breaker undervoltage and shunt trip attachments on Westinghouse, B&W and CE plants; i
the silicon controlled rectifiers in the CRDCS on B&W plants; and the scram pilot and backup scram valves on GE plants will only be confirmed here since they are specifically addressed in Items 4.4 and 4.5.1.
Maintenance and tasting of the Reactor Trip Breakers are also excluded from this review, as they are evaluated under Item 4.2.
This review of the licensee /applic, ant cubmittals wills j
1.
Confirm that the licensee / applicant has identified those portions of the Reactor Trip System that are not on-line testable.
If the entire Reactor Trip System is verified to be on-line testable, with those exceptions addressed above, no further review is required.
i l
2.
Evaluate modifications proposed by licensees / applicants to permit on-line testing against the existing criteria for the design of the protection systems for the plant being modified.
3.
Evaluate proposed alternatives to on-line testing of the Reactor Trip l
System for acceptability based on the following:
J A
2
_ _ -- _ _- - - - -, _. _ -~- -
- c. Tha licenc03/cppliccnt cubmittc,1 cubatcnticton th9 impeccticality of the modifications necessary to permit on-line testing, and 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 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 followings i.
Demonstration by systematic analysis that testing at shutdown intervals provides essentially equivalent reliability to that obtained by on-line testing at shorter intervals.
ii.
Demonstration that reliability equivalent to that obtained by on-line testing is accomplished by additional redundant and diverse components or by other features.
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.
iv.
Development of a test program that compensates for the lack of on-line testing, e.
g., one which uses trend analysis and identification of safety margins for critical i
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 attachments on 3
i 1
CE plcnto.
Inform: tion froa liccncosa cnd cppliccnto with CE plcnto will be reviewed to verify that they require-independent on-line testing of the reactor trip breaker undervoltage and shunt trip attachments.
4
3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS The relevant submittals from each of the CE reactor plants were rcviewed to determine compliance with Item 4.5.2.
First, the submittals from each plant were reviewed to establish that Item 4.5.2 was specifically cddressed.
Second, the submittals were evaluated to determine the extent to which each of the CE plants complies with the staff guidelines for Itcm 4.5.2.
G 5
7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR MAINE YAN}'EE 7.1 Evaluation Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, the licensee for Maine Yankee, rcsponded to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 10, 1983.
In that rcsponse the licensee states that Maine Yankee performs on-line testing of the Reactor Trip System, and is pursuing modifications that will permit on-line independent testing of the shunt and undervoltage attachments.
7.2 Concl usi on We find that the licensee's statement that they perform on-line testing cf the RTS meets the staff position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter and 10, we believe, acceptable.
S 9
15.
GROUP CONCLUSION We conclude that the licensee / applicant responses for the listed CE plants for Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-20 are acceptable, wi'.h the cxception of those for Millstone Unit 2, San Onofre Units 2 and 3 a.id Waterford 3, which were found to be incomplete as indicated in the plant cpecific review results.
WNP 3 is in a state of extended construction delay cnd the staff has closed this Item for this evaluation because it will be rcsolved during the resumption of licensing activities.
I 17 i
e 4
13.
REFERENCES 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.
Generic Imolications of ATWS Events at the Salem 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 D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, " Arkansas Nuclear One Response to Generic Letter 83-28," Novembee 5, 1983.
4.
Baltimore Gas and Electric letter to NRC, A.
E. Lundvall to D.
G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, November 5, 1983.
5.
Baltimore Gas and Electric letter to NRC, A.
E. Lundvall to D.
G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, February 29, 1984.
6.
Omaha Public Power District letter to NRC, W.
C.
Jones to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," November 4, 1983.
7.
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company letter to NRC, C.
D.
Frizzle to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28),"
November 10, 1983.
C.
Northeast Utilities letter to NRC, W. G. Counsil to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, November 8, 1983.
9.
Consumers Power Company letter to NRC, James L. Kuomin to Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Supplemental Response to Generic Letter 83-28," July 1, 1985.
10.
Arizona Public Service Company letter to NRC, E. E. Van Brunt, Jr., to i
Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, November 3, 1983.
l 11.
Southern California Edison Company letter to NRC, F. R. Nandy to Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Response to Generic Letter 83-28," November 29, 1983.
I 12.
Southern California Edison Company letter to NRC, M.
O.
Medford to Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, October 2, 1985.
I, 13.
Florida Power and Light Company letter to NRC, J. W.
Williams, Jr.,
to D. O. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic l
Letter 83-28," November 8, 1983.
l r
18 L
e 14.
Louicicno Power cnd Light Icttcr to NRC, K. W. Cook to D. G.
- Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28),"
November 4, 1983.
15.
Washington Public Power Supply System letter to NRC, G. C. Sorenson to Director, Division of Licensing, " Nuclear Project No.
3, Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Salem ATWS Event," August 23, 1983.
9 4
d I
l l
f 19 l
!