ML20244D441

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3, LaSalle County Station Units 1 & 2 & Washington Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Contains Info for LaSalle
ML20244D441
Person / Time
Site: Columbia, LaSalle, 05000000
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-53012, TAC-53850, TAC-53851, TAC-53896, NUDOCS 8508260272
Download: ML20244D441 (14)
v • d • e


Text

- ,

, 1

.l

.l l

'l i

u i

ICONFOPJ4ANCE TO GENERIC LETTER '83-28. 4 ITEMS 3.1.3'AND 3.2.3 s LASALLE COUNTY' STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, WNP-2

.i R. VanderBeek Published June 1985

.]

EG&G Idaho, Inc, j Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 , j i

'I Prepared for the . j Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No'. DE-AC07-761D01570. .

FIN No. D6001'- '

~

/* ~~*"m.,

~- %,

SE ADOCK 05000237 i u____________

ef .

T 2.h J

ABSTRACT 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' because. tj of similarity in type and applicability. of the review' items. The. group j includes the following plants:

1 Plant Docket Number TAC. Numbers LaSalle 1 50-373 53012, 53850 .;

J LaSalle 2 50-374 53851 WNP-2 50-397 53896 FOREWORD' i

This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating j licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 " Required Actions l 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., NRC Licensing Support Section. )

.i The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under. the authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN No. D6001. )

i i

1 I

i

)

11

y i _

e- .

i

' CONTENTS-

.l 4

y .

xsSTRACT .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , ii .

q

0 REWORD ............................................................... . Jiil
1. ~ INTRODUCTION .....................................................- l1
2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ...............'............................... L2 3 el . j,
3. GROUP REVIEW RESULTS ......................... ....... ........... f2.
t. . ' REVIEW RESULTS FOR LGALLE COUNTY STATION UNIT N05. '1? AND 2 . . . : . . 5

.l 4.1 Evaluation .............................. .................. ' 5~

4.2 Conclusion ................................................. -5 1 1 4

5. REV I EW R E S U LTS FOR WP-2 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. .

6- .

5.1 Evaluation .................................................: .

J 6" 5.2 Conclusion ..................................................- 6-

6. GROUP CONCLUSION .................................................. '7.
7. REFERENCES ........ .............................................. 87 TABLE 1 ........................................................ . . . .4 -q l

,1 l

j i

lii- ,

'1 i

4

_.-_--______._-_._-.___.m._ _ _ _ _ _ _

,4,,

+

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 -

LA SALLE COUNTY STATION._ UNIT-NOS; 1.AND 2, WNP-2.

l. INTRODUCTION On July 8,'1983, Generic Letter ho. 83-28 'was. issuec by -

C. G. Eisenhut, Director of the~ Division of Licensing, Nuclear. Reactor Regulation, to all licensees of operating reactors,' applicants for operating licenses, and holaers of. construction permits. . Thisoletter-1 included required actions baseo on generic implications of the Salem ATWS =

e . ents. These requirements have been publisned .in Volume 2 of NUREG-1000; 4

%neric Implications of ATWS Events' at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant".2 '

Tnis report documents the EG&G Idaho, .Inc. review of: the submittalso f::r the LaSalle Count -Station Unit Nos l' and' 2 and WNP-2 plants for '

conformance to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 82-28.

The submittals from the licensees.utilizedIin these evaluations are referenceo in section 7 of this report. . s These review results are applicable to the group of nuclear plantsy previously icentifiec because of their similarity. These plants'are.

similar in the following respects,

l. They are operating GE-BWR reactors
2. They are 1969 (Model 5) reactors
3. They utilize two class lE Power System Trains
4. They use relay logic in the Reactor Trip Systees.

An item of concern icentified for any one of these plants' is. assumed to be potentially significant for all of the pla'nts in the' group.

L l .

!;. ~

1-

)

~

l

2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS

'l Item 3.1.3 (Pcst-Maintenance Testing of Reactor Trip System j Components) requires licensees and' applicants to identify, if applicable, any post-maintenance test requirements for the Reactor Trip System (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. j l

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 d Letter. First, the submittals from each plant were reviewed to determine that these two items were specifically addressed. Second, the submittals.

i were checked to determine .if there were any- post-mainteunce test items  !

specified by the technical specifications that'were suspected to degrade. 1

'l rather than enhance safety. Last, the submittals were reviewed for .1 i

evidence of special conditions or other significant information relating to the two items of concern. The results of this review are sumarized for each plant in Table 1.

J l

All of the responses indicated that there had been no items-identified from the licensee 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.

i 2

The BWR Owners Group is presently addressing Generic Letter 83-28 ites 3

't.5.3 which may result in proposed changes to the technical specification requirements for surveillance testing frequency and c.t-of-service intervals for surveillance. 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 concerns will be adequately considered. Since no specific proposal to changeLthe j rechnical specifications has been pr: posed, there is 'no identifiable need-  !

at this time for correlating the reviews of item 4.5.3 with this review, i

j l

4 I

i i

I l

l l

l l

1 3

s t

n e

m - - ~w m - -

o C

l

-e el sb -

s +

na s e y

ot e pp y -

se ec Rc

.A s s m m s e e g t t n I I i t t d .ay .ay n cht ch t i ete ete f p f p f sda sda o es J4 -cs e ,l s hre h l' e n cid cid e eta eta c tnr eg tnr eg i.

L ode od u NId Nid d

e 3st

.se 1 et

.rt 3dl da .

sAb m u se e s

e 3.S t Y Y e

i2. h e3t r

edn Wni a

2 d

n a

1 s t t i n n  %

a U

. l 1 P l

e i

l 2 t a l

S r l

A a u I L w

I 4 REVIEW RESULTS FOR LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNIT NOS.1 AND 2; N

4.1 Evaluation 1

'i Commonwealth Edison, the licensee for'LaSalle County Station Unit Nos. I and 2, provided responses to items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-23 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

'l technical specifications, there were 'no post-maintenance test requiremen s identified for the reactor trip ' system or other safety-related components - !f which tended to degrade rather than' enhance plant'. safety. 4 4.2 Conclusion  !

Based on the licensee's stater.ent that they have reviewed their technical specification requirements to ' dentify~

i any post maintenance'.

11 1 testing which could be demonstrated to degrade rather inan enhance safety: j and found none that degraded safety, we find the licensee's responses- l acceptable.  !

)

a 5'

5 ,

-' ~ 9 ~r. '. l

' c

., i; ' ,

l6.'. GROUP CONCLUSION.

The' staff concludes that the licensees' responses for items 3.'1.3i and:3.2.3.'~of!GenericLetter83-28areadequateand. acceptable!

,-2 0

i l 1 l

i l ,l

! 1 1

l i

i

.! 5

<k l

j l

1

-.I 1

1.

l i

-J 7-

.c .:j

- - - _....--..___-w

1 ,

4

, fj o

e !l ,

N 1

)

7. REFERENCES, '
1. -NRC Letter, .D. G Eisenhut: to all Licensees ~of. ' Operating Reactors, .;

Applicants ,for. Operating License, and. Holders of; Construction Persits, . i

" Required Actions Based on: Generic Implications.'of Salem ATWS Events 4 'l (Generic . Letter 83-28)". JulyT8,l1983. o 1

2. GenericiImplication's of1ATVS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, -j NUREG-1000, Volume 1, April 1983;-Volume 2, July:1983. ,

'3. BWR Owners' Group Responses'to NRC' Generic Letter 83-28; Items'4.5.3,~

' General Electric Company. Proprietary Information, NEDC-30844, .

January 1985.' c ,

i+  ?

~

l

4. Commonwealth Edison letter to NRC,a P. L. Barnes to H.' R. lDenton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, "Dresdenistation'.' , ,

Units 2 and 3, Quad Cities Station Unitsil. and 2,5 Zion Station; Units;l and 2,~ Lasalle County Station'.dnits 1 and '2,c Byron Station Units '1 and 2, Braidwood Station Units ? 1iand =2' . Response to Generic' Letter '

l.

No. 83-28,lNRC Docket Nos. 50-237/249,'50-254/265, 50-295/304,..

I 50-373/374, 50-454/455,'and 50-456/457,"i November 5,1983.

5. Washington Public Power Supply System-letter to. NRC, G. C. Sorensen,-

Manager, Regulatory Programs'.to A. Schwencer, Chief,1 Licensing Branch l No. 2, Division of Licensing,;NRC," Nuclear Project No; 2, Response' to'.  !

Generic Letter 83-28,"' November 18, 1983,-G02-83-1076o I

l l

l l

8

-- mAE_

lN

4 l

, v d

e d

e -

e f n o -

e n r o e i

t w

o a s

.t u m s l e nd a t re v i ed e ce e -

ne d s on i e c _ p h t a t eo r _

h n n _

o t d s e da t s ew s

t i

p u

se m w o

3 ee rs e l 2 dn p l de o 3 aci d n

f S dl a oy 3 I n Nt S ae h t e

.l i

1 A tt e ti 3

B p l pb mh ot p

m ma ot g s rp m ri o pe e pw. c t t t t s c n n n T I snn s sc e e e U

P aor a aa s

m m s

m s

N wie w w r s s s 8 tc t I 2 ean e . ei e e e M - sco se se s s s U P 3,8 3 nic nc nh s s s n L on on ot a a a A 2 pue pa p t

L S sms si se r r r C

N B ts L.

eme roh el rp en ri f o f o

E S iG ct m C n l eo l m s s s I

Uf are ec ae i i i

,o nev ihl s

nr nt ie a s s a

s a

nw ee gto irs ei ce i gd b b di rue ih ro N o

N o

sv OFr Lt Ot 1 t

ee rR D

E T CY NR
C A A A TE 9. O / / /

J 8 GE I i 1 4 i NB LU 1

0T 1 1 i i s PS FA RC E

P s 7 s t

.e n e

u s v N fs s E O osI e t IA t o n e n e TI tn tn e AR ne ol v l b g em i m n.

UE LT AI me ev dia tc ui s

n ey cr ro t

a r

i f

VR gl l n o p ot o f EC ao oh sc s fs p a nv an ee e ni e t S

R ._ EH R MI RT. ,

s n

r e

c n

o f rc o e

h e n t s o re i t

uh Ft a u s e l m

.v a e sl v t n o e i r s e e d e c r i s n p e o o a r ^ h t

c t ed d n h e e o y .

t d t e t st pi d e i e n n ul

' s n wi s t e ob 3 e o p l a r n l t op 2 d d d s n f e 3 a a a c w oc S d e il a 3 I n e t r

S a e e

'.3 A B t n p e s l p

m t e ph

.i m c o c

mt o

t n

t n

t n

s o i m r l re e e e e p s pn m m m t e a i s s s T

U I s h a t w sm ar s

e s

e e s

P N 8 w

h e

s wet s s s s s s

I t

N 2 e t n . ee a a a P 2, 3 - s i oe sd U

S L nw o

pc sn n

oo r

o r r o

U A 18 p n ea pt o

S f f f L

C s . s o ri s e i ed s s s N

E B

S t L.

i r t a

sp l

re i i i nG m d s s s C

I U l c a i

'eec o l e ae a a a

,f b b b o n n s nn e i u g

nr i ge o o o l w ei N H N l e i r o m ih ce ir re ai Sv O c Lt Ow .

ae LR

E T
C TE N A A A MJB CM RE 1 1

/

N

/

N

/

4i UU PS OT 1 FA RC E

P s

s t e n u s e fs s v N osI e E O o n t IA t n e TI tn tn e e AR ne ol v l UE em hia i s

m ey b

a y LT me ev ctc aui n cr t r

g g

AI VR gl ol n o p

ro o g EC ao roh ot p ,

nv psc s fs e g an pee R

e ni EH R $

MI ART

s d n e r d e e c .

e n f n o o rc e e n r h e o e t s i w re t a

uh s Ft u m l e e a t

.v v i sl e n o e r s d s e e i e c r p h n - a t o o r _

c t n d o e d e h e t s t d t p e i n

u d e n w

' e n o s e p

l 3 s t l

. e o o

' 2 r n d f

. d n 3 d s a o a a N S w e 3 I d t .

S n e e .y 1

A a e l p

tt B s pi 3 t n m ml p e o oi . ' . .

s mc c rb t t t m o i pa n n n e r l s t e e e T t p a sp m m m U I e w ae s s s P ,

s h a t e wcc s e

s e

s e

N 8 w s ea s s s t I 2 h n . s s s s M

P - e t oe pc nr a a a 3 s i oi W L A 2, 6 nw sn pe r r r U S o ea sh o o o L 1 . p n ri et f f f L

B , L. s o l r N S e i sp e s s s E sG r t m l n C e a 'e o ai i

s i

s i

s I

if to l c a i ec s

nm i r b a

b a

b a

i n n nr ge Cw i u g ns ei it o o o e ce re N N H di i n ih Od av r o Lt ~

ue O c QR .

E T CY
C N TE A A A NJ AB W.M f E /

N

/ /

LU 0T 1 N d PS FA 1 1 -

RC E

P s

t 7

s n e e u s s v N fs E O osI e IA t o n t n e TI tn tn e e AR ne ol v l g

UE em hia i m ey b

a n LT me ctc s AI ev ui R cr t r

i VR gl l n O ro o f

f EC ao oh P ot p a nv sc s fs an ee e ni e t S

RT R EH R MI

- . . .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20244D441&oldid=3220398"