ML20244D438
| ML20244D438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Millstone, Monticello, Dresden, Davis Besse, Nine Mile Point, Palo Verde, Kewaunee, Wolf Creek, Hope Creek, Sequoyah, Pilgrim, Prairie Island, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Ginna, Waterford, Cook, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Rancho Seco, Zion, Bellefonte, FitzPatrick, 05000000, Trojan |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1985 |
| From: | Vanderbeek R EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235V135 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001, FOIA-87-644 TAC-52995, TAC-52996, TAC-53016, TAC-53018, TAC-53029, TAC-53034, TAC-53035, TAC-53833, TAC-53834, TAC-53855, TAC-53857, TAC-53868, TAC-53873, TAC-53874, NUDOCS 8508260269 | |
| Download: ML20244D438 (14) | |
Text
-
-I i
l 1
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83,
ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 DRESDEN UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3,' MILLSTONE UNIT NO.1-MONTICELLO, PILGRIM, QUAD CITIES UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 R. 'vanderBeek Published June 1985 EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idano Falls, Idaho 83415 k
.1 l
Prepared for the
.]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 '
FIN No. D6001
'l
[
I No8ES$joa7 l
N
ABSTRACT l
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 reviewed were selected as'a group becauseL
^
of'siuilarity in type and appitcability of-the review items'. The group.
includes the following plants:
. TAC Numbers Plant Docket Number 1
Dresden 2 50-237 52995, 53833:
Dresden 3 50-249 52996,.53834:
R Millstone 1 50-245
.53016, 53855:
53018, 53857-
'Monticello 50-263' Pilgrim 50-293
~53029, 53868-Quad Cities 1 50-254 53034r 53873 Quad Cities 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 based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This work.is.
conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office.of Nuclear.
Reactor Regulation, Division of System Integration by EG&G Idaho,. Inc.. NRCL Licensing Support Section.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work uhder the authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN No. D6001.
.g I
.i 1
ll 1
11 1
_L_
1
q 1
i
)
i CONTENTS ABSTRACT..............................................................
- 1?
FOREWORD..............................................................
1 1
1.
INTRODUCTION...............................'..~....................
I' l
l 2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS:..............................................
2:
3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS.............................................-
12 4.
REVIEW RESuLTS FOR ORESDEN UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3.........'............
5 1.
4.1 Evaluation..................................................-
SL 4.2 Conclusion...............................................;...
S' si 5.
REVI EW RESULTS FOR MILLSTONE 1 :.................................. -
61
.5.1 Evaluation.................................................-
6.
5.2 Conclusion................................................
6-6.
R EVI EW RE S U LTS FOR MONTI C E LLO....................................
7J l
6.1 Evaluation..................................................
7 i
6.2 Conclusion.................................................
7 7.
REVI EW RESU LTS FOR PI LGRIM......................................
8 7.1 Evaluation.................................................
8.
7.2 Conclusion.................................................
8 8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR QUAD CITIES UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2...........'......
9 8.1 Evaluation.................................................
.9 8.2 Conclusion......-...........................................
9
'I 1
l 9.
G RC U P C ON C LU S I ON.................................................,
10 10.
REFERENCES........................................................ :11 TABLES q
t, l
1.
Table 1..........................................................
4 1.i
);j i
)
iii 1
1 1
i
- j
__-__L__-_-__O
q g
u e
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3
)
DRESDEN UNIT N05. 2 AND 3, MILLSTONE UNIT NO. 1 MDNTICELLO, PILGRIM, QUAD CITIES UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 1
1.
INTRODUCTION l
1 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 l
l cperating licenses, and holders of construction permits. This letter included required actions based on' generic implications of the Salem ATWS-I events.
These requirements have been published in Volume 2 of NUREGa1000, i
Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear' Power Plant".2 l
l 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, and Quad Cities Unit Nos. I 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 these evaluations are referenced in section 10 of this report.
)
J These review results are applicable to the-group of nuclear plants I previously identified because of their similarity. These plants are'
' similar in ";he following respects.
l 1.
iiiey are operating GE-BWR reactors l
2.
Taey utilize the MARK 1 Containment and Pressure Suppression R/ stems 3.
They are 1965 and 1966 (Model 3) reactors 4.
They utilize two class IE Power System Trains 5.
They use relay logic in the Reactor Trip Systems.
]
An iten of concern identified for any one of these plants is assumed to be potentially significant for all of the plants in the group.
1 L
2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 3.1.3 (Post-Maintenance Testing of Reactor Trip System Components) requires licensees.and applicants to' identify, if applicable, any post-maintenance test requirements for the Reactor-Trip Systes (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 j
^
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 stheittals-were checked to determine if there were ~any post-maintenance test-items specified by the technical specifications that were suspected to degra'de rather than enhance' safety. Last, the submittals were reviewed for evidence of special conditions or other signif.icant information relating to the two items of concern. The results of this review are summarizec for.
each plant in Table 1.
i With the exception of the response for the. Pilgrim Station, all of the' responses 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. However, the licensees gave. no insight on the depth of.
review conducted on these two items.
The response for Monticello indicated that the licensee had based his evaluation on an incomplete review of.the technical specification requirements and is taking the position that no further review or action is 1
required for the two items since the partial reviews. had identified no 4
i 2
7, post-natntenance testing requirements that. degrade. rather than enhance safety of the reactor trip system or_ other safety-related components.
The licensee's response for Pilgrim Station did'not address'the:
a central issue of items 3.1.3 and,3.2.3, i.e., to identify any
'l post-maintenance test requirements in existing technical specifications-
~
which can be demonstrated to. degrade rather than enhance safety of the-reactor trip system and other safety related components.
{
H The BWR Owners Group is presently addressing Generic Letter 83-28' item E
3 4.5.3 which may result in proposed changes to the ' technical-specification requirements for surveillance testing. frequency.,and-out-of-service intervals for testing and post-maintenance testing. The primary concern of item 4.5.3 is the surveillance testing intervals.
1 Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 are specifically. directed at' post-n a ctenance test requirements. These concerns are essentially independent owever, the.
l evaluations of these concerns are coordinated so that 'any' correlation
]
between these concerns 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.
I
~!
3 u-_____.__.____._.___
e l eu so nw olcno li n
.t a
.c ra d
e e
vr d
ee i
wh v
s -
ot o
t hr r
n -
u p
e
,r m
e t.
m to oe o
en ns C
l n
pt so ma ap oh hs ct e
er tsd e
oie sn n r no ni ei sou ct wiq ia ete u
l iir l
vs ea eoe hv R pb Te se el sb na s s
s ot e e
o o
e p9 Y Y
N N
Y se ec Rc A
s s
s m
m m
s e e
e g
t t
t n
I I
i t
t i
t d
.ay
.ay ay n cht cht cht i eto ete ete F
p r p r p
f sde sda sda e
es es es e
.i
,l
.l s hre hre hte n
ctd cid cid e eta eta eta ic tnr tnr tnr eg eg eg L ode ode ode NId NId Nid de
- 3. s l se 1 et
.rt 3didm sAb m u s s
s s
s e 3.S e
e e
e e
Y Y
Y Y
Y t
i 2. he e3t r
edn Wni a _
2 dn 3
a d
1 s n t
a 1
s n
o e
l 2
e l
t a
l i
n 1
P n
o e
m iC e
t c
i E
d s
i r
L s
i t
g d
B e
n T
D l
M i
a l
A r
o l
u M
P Q
ll l
f 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR ORESDEN UNIT NOS.-2 AND 3 4.1 Evaluation
' f l
Commonwealth Edison, the licensee for Dresden Station' Unit Nos. 2 and 3, provided responses to: items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of-Generic u
Letter 83-28 on November 5, 1983.4 Within the responses, the lic'ensee'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.
1 1
4.2. Conclusion
.]
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-tran enhance ' safety l
and found none that degraded safety, we find the licensee's responses.
I acceptable.
I i
I i
J I
a i
5
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ = _
8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR QUAD CITIES UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 8.1 Evaluation Commonwealth Edison, licensee for the Quad Cities Station Unit Nos.1 and 2, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 5, 1933.4 Within the responses, the 11censee's evaluation for items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 is that, following a review ef the technical specifications, there were no post-maintenance test requirements identified for the reactor trip system or'other safety-related coopcments which tended to degrade rather than enhance plant safety.
'l s
8.2 Conclusion.
q
.)
Based on the licensee's statement that they have' reviewed their-technical specification requirements to identify any pcst maintenance j
testing which could be demonstrated to degrade rather tham -enhance safety
'f and found none that degraded safety, we find the licensee's responses acceptable.
1 i
)
9
9.
GROUP CONCLUSIGN With the exception of the responses for P.11 grim Station and '
Monticello, the staff concludes.that the licensees' responses for.
i items-3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 are adequate and acceptable.
s 4
r 10
q 1
10.
REFERENCES
'I.
NRC Letter,. D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating' Reactors, App 1 tcants. for Operating License, -and Nolders of' Construction Permits,
" Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS' Events (Generic Letter 83-28)", July 8, 1983.
1 J
2.
Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, NUREG-1000, Volume 1, April 1983; Volume 2, July 1983.
I 1
3.
BWR Owners' Group Responses to NRC Generic Letter 83-28,' Item 4.5.3,,
)
General Electric Company Proprietary Information, NEDC-30844, January 1985.
4.
Commonwealth Edison letter to NRC, P. L. Barnes to H. R. Denton, l
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, "Dresden' Station 1
Units 2 and 3, Quad Cities Station Units 1 and 2, Zion Station Units:1 1
and 2, Lasalle County Station Units 1 and. 2, Byron Station Units 1
.l and 2, Braidwood Station Units l'and 2, Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28, NRC Docket Nos. 50-237/249, 50-254/265, 50-295/304, 50-373/374, 50-454/455, and 50-456/457," November 5,1983.
5.
Northeast Utilities letter to NRC, W. G. Counsil to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, "Haddam Neck Plant,. Millstone :
Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3, Respense to Generic 1
Letter 83-28, Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events,"
-l November 8, 1983.
I 6.
Northern States Power Company letter to NRC, D. Musolf' to Director, I
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, "Monticello Nuclear j
Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, License No. DPR-22, Generic J
Implications of Salem ATVS Events.
Noventber 14, 1983.
7.
Boston Edison Company letter to NRC, W. D. Harrington to l
D. B. Vassallo, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 2, Division of l
Licensing, NRC, " Response to Generic Letter 83-28", November 7,'1983.
I l
l 11 L
_