ML20236Y371
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ENCLOSURE SAFETY EVALUATIOR REPORT
.GENERTC LETTER 83 ?8, ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING (RT5 COMPONENTS, ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENT 51 PILGRIM NUCLEAR PDkER STATION, ilNIT 1 DOCVET NO.
50-293 INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
1 Generic Letter 83-28 describes intermediate term actions to be taken bv licensees and applicants to address the generic issues raised by the two A*WS events that occurred at Unit 1 of Salem Nuclear Power Plant.
3 This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by Boston Edison Company, the licensee for the Pilgrin Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 for Ite s 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Generic Letter.
The actual documents reviewed as part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of this repnet.
The requirements for these two items are identical with the exception that :*em 3.1.3 applie; 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.
PE0VIREMENT Licensees and applicants shall identify, if applicable, any post-maintenance test requirements in existing Technical Specifications which can be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety.
Appropriate changes to these test re-ouirements, with supporting justification, shall be submitted for staff approval.
8712110275 071209 PDR FOIA SDRGIO7-644 PDR
/
.p.
EVALUATION The licensee for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit I responded to these 3
requirements with submittals dated November 7, 1983 and June 28, 1985,
The licensee stated in these submittals that there were no post-maintenance testing requirements in Technical Specifications for either the reactor trip system nr other safety-related components which degraded safety.
CONCLUSION Based en the licensee's statement that no post-maintenance test requirements were found in Technical Specifications that degraded safety, we find the licensee's resonnses acceptable for Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic letter 83-28.
RErEDENL ;
1.
ND.C Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, Apolicants 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.
Boston Edison Cnmpany letter to NRC, W. D. Harrington to D. B. Vassallo, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 2, Division of Licensing, NRC,
" Response to Generic Letter 83-28", November 7,1983
REFERENCES (CONT.)
3.
Boston Edison Compary letter to NRC, W. D. Harrington to D. B. Vatsello,
)
Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 2, Division of Licensing, N:C, "Pesponses to Generic Letter B3-28," June 28,1985.
l
~
re ic en
~
ha ti r
l e
o t p h
t um tr bo d
c u
e n
F.
rr d
s e
n ei e
. r ce se nh n
ot nc s
c rn a
f eo eo w
cc h
n s
tn oe o
m cs e
e g' i t
nt eh i
ia ht tu t
e e
al s
ua d v e
l v el so ae ht v
ss ee ed n
i rr ep o
d ra do p
er at u
w d w
yd l e ye o
l et 3
ld l
ht ae o
ti 2
ie f
m t n d r 3
r ee e
1 as n
t p pa O
a t3 S
w td i
1 d
sn n1 s
ne
.y a
U g
ae tt e
,3 g
s s e pi t
t t n ml t
n nt t
n ns pe oe oi n
e n
e om mc rb e
i e oi sp pa m
m m
pl e
tt rl t
m s
s s
em s
s s
T_
aI p
sp s
e t
e ro s
e ae c
e e
s U
S,
s sh wc s
s l
s s
P G
at c
s a
x N
r2 w
na a
as s
a ea a
I e-h s
i iw r
r T
P o8 si w3 et nr r
o g
r o
A L
P nw pe f
i e oi o
o f
f T
A rs f
o sh s
L S
r L.
pn on s
et s
i o
s i
a so r
i 5
B eG sp i
s s
S ei e
s a
s s
a rt
'e e l
l n a
1 a
b b
C cf a
ai b
er I
- luo l c nn b
~
s in o
0 o
1 f
ai l
nl o
1 f
w nn ge i
t i
1 ea me iu it t
cn gn re
~
i i ii rv in Od ge ro Lf l R Oc i
P T
CY A
A A
A E
/
/
- C NR
/
TE F. O N
N N
N
/
G 2
NJ t
2 AB RE 2
~
s t
s n
,e e
u s
v s
s E
N 7, s e
t O
n e
IA t
I e
ne l
l m
b g
g TI tn v
AR ne a
ey a
n n
i UE em i
i sn cr t
n
']g c f
LT me ro r
i f
i AI ev n
o
,h P
ot o
fs p
a a
VR gl t
r EC ao c
s ni e
T nv e
EH R
S,
~
n kI T
7 4
5 6
1 lIi\\
l CONFORMA %CE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEV.S 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 DRE5 DEN UNIT N35. 2 AND 3, MILLSTONE UNIT NO.1 MONTICELLO, PILERIM, QUAD CITIES UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 R. VanderBeek R. Haroidsen Puolished December 1985 l
l ES&G Idaho, Inc.
l l
Prepared for the U.S. Nu: lear Regulatory Commission Wasrington, D.C. 20555 8
Under DOE Cor. ract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. 06001 om 1/
ABSTRACT Inis 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 anc 3.2.3.
The specific plants reviewed were selected as a group because j
of s Tilarity in type and applicability of the review items. The group includes the following plants:
I l
Plant Docket Number TAC Numbers Dresde-2 50-237 52995, 53833 Dresden 3 50-249 52996, 53834-i Millstene 1 50-245 53016, 53855 i
Monticello 50-263 53018, 53857 i
Pilgrin 50-293 53029, 53868,
Quac Cities 1 50-254 53034, 53873 I
Quac Cftfes 2 50-265 53035, 53874 FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 " Required Actions 4
based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This work is concucted 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.
Tee 10.5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN No. D6001.
a ii
CONTENT S ABSTRACT..............................................................
1 FOREWORD..............................................................
i 1.
INTRODUCTION.....................................................
1 2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENT 5..............................................
2 3.
GR OUP R E V I E W R E SULTS.............................................
2 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR DRESDEN UNIT N05. 2 AND 3.....................
5 4.1 Evaluation.................................................
5 4.2 Conclusion.................................................
5 5.
REV IEW RESULTS F OR MILLSTONE 1...................................
6 5.1 Evaluation.................................................
6 i
i 5.2 Conclusion.................................................
6 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR MONTICELLO....................................
7 6.1 Evaluation.................................................
7 l
6.2 Conclusion.................................................
7 l
7.
R E V I E W R E SUL TS F OR P I L GR I M.......................................
8 7.1 Evaluation.................................................
8 7.2 Conclusion.................................................
8 8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR QUAD CITIES UNIT N05. 1 AND 2.................
9 8.1 Evaluation.................................................
9 8.2 Conclusion.................................................
9 9.
GROUP CONCLUSION.................................................
10 10.
REFERENCES.......................................................
11 TABLES A
1.
Table 1..........................................................
4 iii 1
~
o.
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 ORESDEN UNIT N05. 2 AND 3, MILLSTONE UNIT NO.1 MONTICELLO, PILGRIM, QUA0 CITIES UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 f
i 1.
INTRODUCTION l
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 o;erating licenses, and holders of construction permits. This letter f
ircluded 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 ttre Salem Nuclear Power Plant".2 This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals from Dresden Units Nos. 2 and 3 Millstone Unit No.1 Monticello, Pilgrim, a d Quad Cities Unit Nos.1 and 2 for conformance to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28. The submittals from the licensees utilized in trese evaluations are referenced in section 10 of th'is report.
These review results are applicable to the group of nuclear plants p*eviously identified because of their similarity. These plants are
- 'milar in the following respects.
1.
They are operating GE-BWR reacters 2.
They utilize the MARK 1 Containment and Pressure Suppression Systems 3.
They are 1965 and 1966 (Model 3) reactors 4.
They utilize two class 1E Power System Trains 5.
They use relay logic in the Reactor Trip Systems.
An item of concern identified for any one of these olants is assumed t: ce potentially significant for all of the plants in the group.
1
out-of-service inte-vals for testing and post-maintenance testing. The primary concern of item 4.5.3 is the surveillance testing intervals.
Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 are specifically directed at post-maintenance test requirements. These concerns are essentially independent. However, the evaluations of.these concerns are coordinated so that any correlation between these conce-ns will be adequately considered.
Since no specific proposal to change the technical specifications has been proposed, there is no identifiable need at this time for correlating the reviews of item 4.5.3 with this review.
3
i 4
REVIEW RESULTS FOR DRESDEN tlNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 j
j l
4.1 Evaluation d
1
' Commonwealth Edison, the licensee for Dresden Station l
Jnit Nos. 2 and 3, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic j
Letter 83-28 on November 5, 1983.# Within the responses, the licensee's evaluation for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 is'that, following a review of the technical specifications, there were no post-maintenance test requirements identified for the reactor trip system or other safety-related components which tended _to degrade rather than enhance plant safety.
4.2 Conclasion Based on the licensee's statement that they have reviewed their technical specification requirements to identify any post maintenance
' testing which could be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety and found none that degraded safety, we. find the licensee's responses acceptable.
4 e
5
r 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR MONTICEL'_0 6.1 Evaluation Northern States Power Company, the licensee for the Penticello Nuclear Generating Plant, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic i
Letter 83-28 on November 14, 1983.0 Within the responses, the licensee l
indicated for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 that their reviews and checks were
' i nc omplete. However, no testing provisions which degrade rather than enhance safety of the reactor trip system and other safety-related components had been identified. The licensee confirmed in a later 7
telecon that the review of the technical specification had been completed and no post-maintenance requirements were identified that degrade-safety.
6.2 Conclusion The respenses from the licensee meet the requirement of items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 and are acceptable.
l a
l 7
8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR-QUAD CITIES UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 8.1 Evaluation Conrnonwealth Edison, licensee for the Quad Cities Station Unit ics.1 ond 2, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 53-28 on November 5, 1983.4 Within the responses, the licensee's evaluati:n for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 is that, following a review of the technical specifications, there were no post-maintenance test requirements identified for the reactor trip system or other safety-related components which tended to degrade rather than enhance plant safety.
8.2 Conclusion Based on the licensee's stacement that they have reviewed their technical specification requirements to identify any post maintenance testing which could be demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety and found none that degraded safety, we find the licensee's responses acceptable.
i e'
e 9
- 10. REFERENCE S 1.
NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees ef 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 Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Pewer Plant, NURE5-1000, Volume 1, April 1953; Volume 2, July 1984.
3.
8WR Owners' Group Responses to NRC Generic Letter 83-28, Item 4.5.3, General Electric Company Proprietary Infor:2acion, NtDC-30844, January 1985.
4.
Commonwealth Edison letter to NRC, P. L. Barnes to H. R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatiorn, NRC, "Dresden Station Units 2 and 3, Quad Cities Station Units 1 arzd 2, Zion Station Units 1 and 2, Lasalle County Station Units 1 and 2, Byron Station Units 1
- .7d 2, Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2, Respcmse to Generic Letter No. 83-28, NRC Docket Nos. 50-237/249, 50-25A/265, 50-295/304, 50-373/374, 50-454/455, and 50-456/457," November 5,1983.
l 5.
Northeast Utilities letter to NRC, W. G. Counsil to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, "Haddant Neck Plant, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3, Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events,"
Novecber 8,1983.
6.
Northern States Power Company letter to NRC, 3. Musolf to Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, License No. DPR-22, Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events.
Novencer 14, 1983.
7.
Telecon, D. Musolf. Northern States Power Company, to D. Lasher, NRC, November 18, 1985.
8.
Boston Edison Company letter to NRC, W. D. Harrington to D. B. Vassallo, Chief, Operating Reactors Bramch No. 2, Division of Licensing, NRC, " Response to Generic Letter E'3-28", November 7,1983.
9.
Boston Edison Company letter to NRC, W. D. Harrington to D. 8. Vassallo, Chief, Operating Reactors Bra.nch No. 2, Division of I
Licensing, NRC, " Responses to Generic Letter E3-28," June 28,1985.
4 11
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -