ML20211N503
| ML20211N503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Harris, Surry, Turkey Point, Robinson, Zion, 05000000, Trojan |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1987 |
| From: | Farmer F EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211N508 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001, CON-FIN-D-6002 EGG-NTA-7460, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8703020091 | |
| Download: ML20211N503 (19) | |
Text
.
ENCLOSURE 2 EGG-NTA-7460 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABILITY CONFORMANCE TO
. TEM 4.5.2 OF GENERIC LETTER 83-28 H.
B.
ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 SURRY UNITS 1 AND 2 TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 ZION STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 O
F.
G.
Farmer Published January 9, 1987 l
l Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
l Prepared for the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN Nos. D6001 and D6002 I
ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals f or coma of the Westinghouse (W) nuclear plants for conformance to Generic Lottcr 83-28, Item 4.5.2.
The report includes the following plants, all Weatinghouse, and is in partial fulfillment of the f ollowing TAC Nos. :
Plant Docket Number TAC Number O-H.
B. Robinson Unit 2 50-261 54020 Solcm Generating Station Unit 1 50-272 54021 Snicm Generating Station Unit 2 50-311 54022 Sharron Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 (OL) 50-400 64011 Surry Unit 1 50-280 54031 Surry Unit 2 50-281 54032 Trojcn Nuclear Plant
'50-344 54035 Turkcy Point Unit 3 50-250 54036 Turkoy Point Unit 4 50-251 54037 Zion Station Unit 1 50-295 54041 Zion Station Unit 2 50-304 54042 ii
s FOREWORD This report is provided as part of the program for evaluating liccnsee/ applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-20, " Required Actions pacGd on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events."
This work is conducted der 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.
l l
9 iii l-2,_.--._-.----.---._._--,--
CONTENTS ABSTRACT.............................................................
ii FOREWORD.............................................................
iii 1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................
1 2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.............................................
2 3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS............................................-
5 a4.
. REVIEW RESULTS FOR H.
B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT NO. 2......................................................
6 4.1 Evaluation................................................
6 4.2 Conclusion................................................
6
.5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2.......
7 5.1 Evaluation................................................
7
- q 5.2 Conclusion................................................
7
-6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 8
6.1 Evaluation................................................
8 l
- 6. 2' Conclusion................................................
8 ll 7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SURRY UNITS 1 AND 2..........................
9 i
7.1 Evaluation................................................
9 7.2 Conclusion................................................
9 8
REVIEW RESULTS FOR TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT.........................
10 B.1 Evaluation...........................e....................
10 B.2 Conclusion................................................
10 1
9.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4...................
11 9.1 Evaluation 11 9.2 Conclusion................................................
11 10.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ZION STATION UNITS 1 AND 2...................
12 iv
'10.1 Evaluation................................................
12
-10.2 Conclusion................................................
12 11.
GROUP CONCLUSION................................................
13 12.
REFERENCES......................................................
14 O
h J
1 V
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABILITY CONFORMANCE TO ITgM 4.5.2 OF GENERIC LETTER 83-28 H.
B.
ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT. UNIT NO. 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1
-SURRY UNITS 1 AND 2 TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT I
TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 ZION STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 1.
INTRODUCTION On July 8, 1983, Generic Letter 83-285 was issued by D. G. Eisenhut, DirGetor of the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for operating licenses, e
cnd holders of construction permits.
This letter included required actions bensd on generic implications of the Salem ATWS events.
These requirements hevo been published in Volume 2 of NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of ATWS Evonts at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant."*
This report document's the EG&G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals of com2 of the Westinghouse plants including Robinson 2, Salem Units 1 and 2, Shocron Harris 1, Surry 1 and 2, Trojan, Turkey Point 3 and 4 and Zion 1 cnd 2 for conformance to Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-28.
The submittals f rom the licensees utilized in these evaluations are ref erenced in Ssetion 12 of this report.
l 1
P 2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 4.5.2 (Reactor Trip System Reliability - System Functional Tosting - On-Line Testing) requires licensees and applicants with plants not currcntly designed to permit on-line testing to justify not making modifications to permit such testing.
Alternatives to on-line testing will ba considered where special circumstances exist and where the objective of high reliability can be met in another way.
Item 4.5.2 may be interdependent with Item 4.5.3 when there is a need to justify not pGrforming on-line testing because of the peculiarities of a particular danign.
All portions of the Reactor Trip System that do not have on-line tGoting capability will be reviewed under the guidelines f or this item.
Mnintenance and testing of the Reactor Trip Breakers are also excluded from thio review, as they are evaluated under Item 4.2.
This review of the ticansee/ 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 entire Reactor Trip System is verified to be on-line testable, no further revi ew is required.
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 System for acceptability based on the following:
2
- a. The licensee / applicant submittal substantiates the impracticality 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 e
on-line testing is accomplished by additional redundant and diverse components or by other features.
iii. Development of a maintenance program based on early 1
I
. replacement of critical components that compensates f or 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 parameters of safety-related components.
Such a program would require analytical justification supported by test data.
3 l
4, Verify the capability to perform independent on-line testing of the reactor trip system breaker undervoltage and shunt trip 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.
O l
4
3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS The relevant submittals from each of the Westinghouse reactor plants w;ro reviewed to determine compliance with Item 4.5.2.
First, the cubmittals from each plant were reviewed to establish that Item 4.5.2 was cpscifically addressed.
Second, the submittals were evaluated to determine tha cxtent to which each of the Westinghouse plants complies with the staff guidalines f or Item 4.5.2.
i 5
i
1 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR H.
B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT NO. 2 4.1 Evaluation Carolina Power and Light Company, the license for Robinson 2, provided thair response to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 7, 1983.
In that response, the licensee states that Robinson performs on-line testing of tha reactor trip breakers and annual verification of independent operation of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments.
It is not clear from the licensee response that Robinson 2 performs en-line testing of the entire reactor trip system, as required by Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter.
The licensee's Technical Specifications require that c11 portions of the RTS be tested monthly, which implies that they are tcetcd on-line.
O 4.2 Concl usi on We fis.d that the licensee's response did not clearly state that the entire RTS would be functionally tested on-line on a periodic basis.
i However, the licensee *s Technical Specifications require that all portions Cf the RTS be functionally tested monthly, which implies that they are tOctcd on-line.
We find this meets the staff position and is acceptable.
Tha licensee's proposal to conduct verification of the diverse RTB trip l fcctures on an annual basis will be evaluated as part of the resolution of G:ncric Letter 83-28, Item 4.5.3, and Generic Letter 85-09.
l l
6 l
l
___-_____,-_m.-
. - - _ = - - - -, - -.
5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 5.1 Evaluation Public Service Electric and Gas Company, the licensee for Salem 1 cnd 2, provided their response to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on July 22, 1983.
That response ref erenced previous submittals for Salem dated M:rch 8, March 14, April 7, April 8 and June 20, 1983.
In that corro pondence, the licensee identifies en-line testing of the reactor trip brockcrs, including independent testing of the undervaltage and shunt trip cttcchments.
It is not clear from the licensee response that Salem performs on-line tcoting1of the entire reactor trip system, as required by Itsm 4.5.2 of the Dcncric Letter.
However, the licensee's Technical Specifications require that c11 portions of the RTS be tested monthly, which implies that they are Ocotcd on-line.
5.2 Conclusion We find that the licensee's response did not clearly state that the cntiro RTS would be f unctionally tested on-line on a periodic basis.
Howev;r, the licensee's Technical Specifications require that all portions cf ths RTS be functionally tested monthly, which implies that they are tcctcd on-line.
We find this and the licensee's commitment to perform indep:ndent on-line testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments meet the staff position on Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-20 and are ccccptable.
7
6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 e
6.1 Evaluation Carolina Power and Light Company, the applicant for Shearon Harris, rorponded to I' tem 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 7, 1983.
In that rccponse, the applicant states that Shearon Harris will have on-line testing ccpcbility for the Reactor Trip System.
It is not clear from this response whsth;r the applicant plans to provide the ability to perform independent tcating of the shunt and undervoltage attachments.
6.2 Conclusion We find that the applicant's statement that Shearon Harris will have i tha ccpability to perform on-line testing of the RTS meets the staff ho31 tion on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter and is, we believe, acceptable; howev:r, the appl-icant should confirm that he plans to provide the ability to p;rform independent on-line testing of the shunt and undervoltage cttcchments of the reactor trip breakers.
l l
l
{
8
7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SURRY UNITS 1 AND 2 7.1 Evaluation Virginia Electric and Power Company, the licensee for Surry, responded to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 4, 1983.
In that response, tha licensee states that at Surry, independent testing of the diverse trip fostures is part of the Preventative Maintenance Program, and that Itcm 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter is not applicable.
7.2 Conclusion We find the licensee's statement that Item 4.5.2 is not applicable to b3 ccnfirmation that Surry performs on-line testing of the RTS, that this confirmation meets the staff position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter
- cnd 10, we believe, acceptable.
O 9
8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT 8.1 Evaluation Portland General Electric Company, the licensee for Trojan, responded to Itcm 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 4, 1983.
In that response, th2 licensee states that Trojan is designed to allow on-line testing of the rocctor trip breakers,and that implementation of the ra' actor trip breaker chunt trip modification will allow independent verification of the operation of tha undervoltage and shunt trip attachments.
The licensee's responses do not indicate that on-line testing of the Reactor Trip System as a whole is p;rformed.
However, the licensee's Technical Specifications require that all portions of the RTS be tested monthly, which implies that they are
.tostcd on-line.
B.2 Conclusion We find that the licensee's response did not clearly state that the cntiro RTS would be functionally tested on-line on a periodic basis.
However, the licensee's Technical Specifications require that all portions of the RTS be functionally tested monthly, which implies that they are toctcd on-line.
We find this and the licensee's commitment to perform indcpendent on-line testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments csst the staff position on Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-20 and are ccccptable.
i l
10 i_
9.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 9.1 Evaluation Florida Power and Light Company, the licensee for Turkey Point, rcepended to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 8, 1983.
In that rceponse, the licensee states that Turkey Point has a complete on-line
,cyctcm test procedure which is performed monthly, and that completion of the chunt trip modification will permit independent on-line verification of the epcrcbility of the diverse trip features.
9.2 Conclusion We find that the licensee's statement that Turkey Point is currently pGrforming on-line testing of the RTS and the licensee *s commitment to parform independent on-line testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip
- sttcchments meet the sta#f position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter and cra, we believe, acceptable.
9 I
1 11
10.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ZION STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 10.1 Evaluation Commonwealth Edison, the licensee for Zion 1 and 2 submitted responses to Itcm 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 5, 1983, and June 12, 1985.
In those responses, the licensee states that Zion is designed to permit on-line testing of the Reactor Trip System and that the ability to functionally test the diverse trip features will be in place upon completion of tha automatic shunt trip actuation modification.
10.2 Conclusion We find that the licensee's statement that Zion is designed to permit parformance of on-line testing of the RTS meets the staff position on Jtcm.4.5.2 of the Generic Letter and is, we believe, acceptable, e
1 f
s 1
12
11.
GROUP CONCLUSION We conclude that the licensee / applicant responses for the listed Westinghouse plants for Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 are acceptable.
I e
I t
l l
13
.. ~ -. _ _ _ _,. -.. _ _ _ -. _. _ _. _ -. -
o 12.
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, Volume 1, April 1983; Volume 2, July 1983.
t 3.
Carolina Power and Light letter to NRC, A.
B.
Cutter to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 7, 1983.
4.
Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A. Uderitz to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Reactor Trip Breaker i
Failure," March 8, 1983.
5.
Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A.
Uderitz to i
D.
G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Corrective Action Program Related to Reactor Trip Breaker Failures," March 14, 1983.
- _ 6.
Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A.
Uderitz to
!6 D.
G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Corrective Action
- o Program Related to Reactor Trip Breaker Failures," April 7, 1983.
l 7-Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, Richard A. Uderitz to D.
G.
Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Corrective Action Program Related to Reactor Trip Breaker Failures," April 8, 1983.
g I
f Public Service Electric and Gas letter to NRC, E. A. Linden to Director i,
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Response to Seneric Letter 83-28,"
l July 22, 1983.
\\
!9 Carolina Power and Light letter to NRC, A. B. Cutter to D.
G.
- Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 7, 1983.
10.
Virginia Electr'ic and Power Company letter to NRC, W.
L. Stewart, to Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
" Response to Generic Letter 83-28," November 4, 1983.
11.
Portland Seneral Electric Company letter to NRC, Bart D. Withers, to Darrel G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 4, 1983.
12.
Florida Power and Light Company letter to NRC, J.
W.
Williams, to Darrel G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Generic Letter 83-28," November 8, 1983.
13.
Commonwealth Edison letter to NRC, P. L. Barnes to Harold R.
- Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, November 5, 1983.
14 Commonwealth Edison letter to NRC, G.
L. Alexander to Harold R.
- Denton, Director, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Required Actions Based en Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," June 12, 1985.
l 14 i