ML20214J712

Safety Evaluation Concluding That Util 850905 Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3 Acceptable Based on Statement That No post-maint Test Requirements Degrade Safety for Reactor Trip Sys & safety-related Components

ML20214J712
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	11/19/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20214J608	List: ML20214J605 ML20214J655 ML20214J683 ML20214J712 ML20214J716
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8612010405
Download: ML20214J712 (2)

Text

, .

ENCLOSURE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING (RTS COMPONENTS,

( ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS) l MILLSTONE NllCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 3 l

DOCKET NO.: 50-473 INTRODilCTION AND

SUMMARY

l Generic Letter 83-?81 describes intermediate term actions to be taken by l

licensees and applicants to address the generic issues raised by the two ATWS events that occurred at Unit 1 of Salem Nuclear Power Plant.

I i

,___ This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by Northeast Nuclear ,

a Energy Company, the applicant for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 l

l for Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of tha Generic Letter. The actual documents reviewed l

as part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of this report, l

l l The requirements for these two items are identical with the exception that Item j 3.1.3 applies these requirements to the Reactor Trip System components and Item 3.2.3 applies them to all other safety-related components. Because of this similarity, the responses to both items were evaluated together.

REQUIREMENT Licensees and applicants shall identify, if applicable, any post-maintenance test reouirements in existing Technical Specifications which can be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety. Appropriate changes to these test re-

quirements, with supporting justification, shall be submitted for staff I

approval.

l 8612010405 861119 i PDR ADOCK 05000423 P PDR

2 EVALUATION The applicant for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 responded to these 2

requirements with a submittal dated September 5, 1985 . The applicant stated in this submittal that there were no post-maintenance testing requirements in Technical Specifications for either the reactor trip system or other safety-related components which degraded safety.

~~-

CONCLUSION Based on the applicanti s statement that no post-maintenance test requirements were found in Technical Specifications that degraded safety, we find the applicant's responses acceptable for Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-?8.

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. Letter, J. F. Opeka, Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., to B i .l Youngblood, NRC, September 5, 1985.

i 1

l

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 3 R. Haroldsen u

• o Publishea November 1985 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 No. 06002

}

ABSTRACT Tnis EG&G .Ioaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Millstone Unit 3, for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.

FOREWORD u_-- ,

C This report is supplied as part of 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 being conducted for .the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of System Integration by EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRR and I&E Support Branch.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the authorization, B&R 10-19-19-11-3, FIN No. 06002.

Docket No. 50-423 ii

CONTENTS A B STRA C T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 FOREWORD ............................................................ il

1. IloRODUCTION ....................................................

2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ............................................. 2

3. REVIEW RESULTS .................................................. 3 3.1 Evaluation ................................................. 3 3.2 Conclusion ................................................. 3 4 REFERENCES ...................................................... 4 0

I I

a iii

- _ . , . - - - - - - . - n. ----. ,---

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.l.3 AND 3.2.3 MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 3

1. INTRODUCTION On July 8, 1983, Generic Letter No.83-28I 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 the 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".2 This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals from I'~~ Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 for conformance to items 3.l.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28. The submittals and other documents utilized in this evaluation are referenced in Section 4 of this report.

4 1

3. REVIEW RESULTS FOR MILLSTONE UNIT 3 3.1 Evaluation Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., the applicant for Millstone Unit 1, provided a response to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 in their 3

submittal dated September 5, 1985 . The submittal states that a draft of the Technical Specifications has been submitted to the NRC for review and approval and that during the development and review of the draft by the applicant they considered the impact of post-maintenance test requirements on component reliability and safety. They conclude that the required tests are appropriate to ensure component operability while not degrading component operability or performance.

u_--

3.2 Conclusion O

The applicant's statement in their September 5, 1985 response meets the requirements of Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable.

G 3

,