"Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3, Catawba

* .

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 .

R. VanderBeek R. Haroldsen

' * * Puolished April 1986

EG&G Ioano, Inc.

. Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415

Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Requiatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 - FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002 86652hp 47 l'ly

_ _ _ - _ - - - - ______- _ ------_ - _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ - ______- . .

- 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 selected were reviewed as a group because of similarity in type and applicability of the review items. The group includes the following plants:

Plant Docket Number TAC Number

Catawba 1 50-413 Catawba 2 50-414 57739, 57723 Cook 1 50-315 52989, 53827 , 52990, 53828 Cook 2 , 50-316 ~ McGuire 1 50-369 53014, 53853 McGuire 2 50-370 53015, 53854 Seouoyan 1 50-327 53043, 53882 Secuoyah 2 50-328 53044, 53883 *f FOREWORD

Tnis report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 "Reauired Actions based on Generic l'ng11 cations of Salem ATWS Events." This work is conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of PWR Licensing-A, by EG&G Idaho, Inc.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the

. authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002.

11 .

- .

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... ii

FOREWORD ...... ii

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ...... 3

3. GROUP REVIEW RESULTS ...... 3 1 4. REVIEW RESULTS FOR CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 .... 5

4.1 Evaluation ...... 5

4 4.2 Conclusion ...... 5

! 5. REVIEW RESULTS FOR DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 ...... 6

" 5.1 Evaluation ...... 6

' 5.2 Conclusion ...... 6

I 6. REVIEW RESULTS FOR WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, i UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 ...... 7

6.1 Evaluation ...... 7

, 6.2 Conclusion ...... 7 i i 7. REVIEW RESULTS FOR SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 ...... 8

* 7.1 Evaluat1on ...... S

8 , 7.2 Conclusion ......

8. GROUP CONCLUSION ...... 9

9. REFERENCES ...... IC

TABLES

1 Table 1 ...... 4

I |

1 i I ; iii | t

__ _ - - _ -______- ______- _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - .- - - - __ . - _ _ . _ -_ . _ .

. . .

- .

1 i ! '" CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 , ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3

4 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2

! DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2,

; WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2, SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2

1. INTRODUCTION

On July 8,1983, Generic Letter No. 83-28 Iwas 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 reouired actions based on generic implications of the Salem ATWS i" events. These reouirements have been published in Volume 2 of NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant".2 , 1 !

' | This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc. review of the submittals

from CatawDa Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. I and 2, Donald C. Cook Nuclear ; ; Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units Nos. I and 2, and Seouoyah Nuclear Plant, 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 these evaluations are referenced in Section 9 of this * - report. .

Tnese review results are applicable to the group of nuclear olants

previously identified because of their similarity. These plants are . similar in the following respects.

i 1. Tney are operatino W PWR reactors

| ' j 2. They utilize ice condenser containment design i 3. Tney are four loop reactors i ! i r | ' 1

. . ______. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . ______. ______._ _ _ . ______. _ _ . _ _ _ . ______. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . ______. _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ - ._ _ -. . _ .- . - _ - _ _ _ _ .

. ..

- !

- 4. They utilize solid state logic in the Plant Protective System j , .

5. They utilize two class 1E Power System Trains.

An item of concern identified for any one of these plants is assumed j to be potentially significant for all of the plants in the group. !

, : |

1 i i ! !

! i

N i

& > - . : , . j ! | :

1 ;

1 i

i ,

! 4 ' 2

...... - __ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ j . ..

;. .

1 2. . REVIE'4 REQUIREMENTS

: i Item 3.1.3 (Post-Maintenance Testing of Reactor Trip System : Components) recuires licensees and applicants to identify, if applicable, i any post-maintenance test recuirements for the Reactor Trip System (RTS) in existing tecnnical specifications which can be demonstrated to degrade ;

, ; rather than enhance safety. Item 3.2.3 extends this same recuirement to include all other safety-related components. Any proposed technical , i 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

' '' 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 ! tnat these two items were specifically addressed. Second, the submittals were checked to determine if any post-maintenance test items specified by

' j the technical specifications were identified that were suspected to degrade I rather than enhance safety. Last, the submittals were reviewed for ! cvidence of special conditions or other significant information relating to the two items of concern. The results of this review are summarized for 1 oach plant in Table 1

. - 1 . | In responses for Catawba 1 and 2, Cook I and 2 McGuire 1 ano 2, and Seouoyan 1 and 2 (for Item 3.1.3) the licensees indicated that there had | , been no items identified relating to post-maintenance testing that could be j demonstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety.

! i i

: 3 i 1

. _ _ . _ __ . _ , _ . - . . , _ , . , _ - . . _ , _ . _ , _ . . . _ . , _ , - - . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - - - _ ~ . _ ~ _ . _ . _ . - , _ _ _ , , . ~ _ _ . - . _ _ . . _ _ _ .-. _ . _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ - . ._ .-

t - , e

TABLE 1. -

Were items 3.1.3 . and 3.2.3 Addressed .

Plants in the Submittal . Licensee Findings Acceptable Conenents

* Catawba I and 2 Yes -- Yes --

| -- -- t Cook 1 and 2 Yes Yes

-- -- | McGuire 1 and 2 Yes Yes | Sequoyah I and 2 Yes -- 3.1.3 Yes Review work discontinued 3.2.3 No

! ,

, i | |

[ t . I |

t * . _ .- _ _ . __ _ . _ _ _ . _ _. y . .- * ! I

- REVIEW RESULTS FOR CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 : 4.

, 4.1 Evaluation

Duke Power Company, the licensee for Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. I and 2 provided responses to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 4, 1983. Within the responses, the licensee states that there is no knowledge of any post-maintenance testing

; reouirements within the technical specifications which can be demonstrated

' to degrade safety of the reactor trip system or other safety-related j components.

I 4.2 Conclusion .

J 8 i Based on the licensee's statement that no items have been identified in the Technical Specifications that degrade safety, the staff concludes tnat the licensee's response is adeouate and acceptable.

1 i

~ G . - .

, . .. .

. ,.

J 5. REVIEW RESULTS FOR DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2

5.1 Evaluation

Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, the licensee for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, provided initial responses to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 4, 1983.4 Additional information for Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 was orovided on April 10,1985.5 Neither of these submittals addressed the Concerns of Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3. f The licensee responded to a recuest f additional information in a subsecuent submittal cated Decemoer 9,198 .6 In the submittal the , licensee identified concern relating to post-maintenance testing of diesel generators reouired by the technical specifications. This specific concern is being evaluated by the staff independent of this review under the guidance of Generic Letter 84-15. The staff was unable to determine from the licensee's submittal if the post-maintenance tests of the diesel generators were the only post-maintenance tests of safety-related components recuired by the technical specifications that were perceived to degrade safety. ,

' By meins of a direct telephone contact on March 26, 19867 confirmation was obtained that no other post-maintenance tests had been identified that degrade safety. Written confirmation was promised by the licensee within one month.

~ 5.2 Conclusion

. Tne staff finas that the licensee's responses meet tne recuirements of Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-23 and are acceptable.

6 . ,.

6. REVIEW RESOLTS FOR WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2

6.1 Evaluation

Duke Power Company, the licensee for William 3, McGuire Nuclear

. Station, Unit Nos. I and 2, provided responses to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 on November 4,1983. Within the responses, the licensee states that there is no knowledge of any post-maintenance testing reouirements within the technical specifications which can be demonstrated to degrade safety of the reactor trip system or other safety-related components.

' 6.2 conclusion a Based on the licensee's statement that no items have been identified in tne Tecnnical Specifications that degrade safety, the staff concludes that the licensee's response is adeouate and acceptable.

; _ _ ------_ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - - _ _ . - - - - _ _ ------.- e

- 7. REVIEW RESULTS FOR SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2

7.1 Evaluation

The Tennesee Valley Authority, the licensee for the Seouoyah Nuclear

. Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2, provided responses to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic letter 83-28 on November 7, 1983.9 For Item 3.1.3, the licensee r states that, at the present time, no post-maintenance testing reouirements have Deen identified which degrade rather than enhance safety. The licensee has not addressed the concerns of Item 3.2.3. '

7.2 Conclusion .

Based on the licensee's statement that they have not identified any reouirements for past-maintenance testing of Reactor Trip System components in their Technical Specifications that may degrade rather than enhance safety, we find the licensee's response to Item 3.1.3 acceptable.

For Item 3.2.3, tne licensee shall review the post-maintenance testing reouirements contained in the technical specifications for other safety related components and determine whether any current post-maintenance . reouirements may degrade rather than enhance safety. If any Current post-maintenance t'esting reouirements are identi.fied that may degrade safety, the licensee shall identify them. If no such reoufrements are found to exist, then a statement to that effect should be submitted.

_ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . t , . ,

- 8. GROUP CONCLUSION

The staff finds the response for-Catawba 1 and 2, Cook 1 and 2, and

McGuire 1 and 2 acceptable for both Items 3.1.2 and 3.2.3. The response - ,

for Seouoyah 1 and 2 is acceptable for Item 3.1.3 but not 3.2.3. ,

, i

r i

k.' i

' , (

' +

' i >

' ( ,

I ' e h j

< . a

r- --____aa__- _ _ - -- _ _ - _ _ _ . _ - _ _. . . _ _ _ - ______- . ______. -______.______m_-_.__m_ _ - _ . - - - - _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ -_ ___ . _ _ _ . - _ _

. .. e

9. REFERENCES . .

1 NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating License, and Holders of Construction Permits, "Reouired 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.

. 3. Duke Power Company letter to NRC, H. B. Tucker to D. G. Eisennut,

t , Director, Division of Licensing, hRC, " Catawba Nuclear Station, Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414," November 4, 1983. 4. Indiana and Michigan Electric Company letter to NRC, M. P. Alexich to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, " Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos. I and 2, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Licensee Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74, Generic Letter 83-28, Reouired Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 4,1983, AEP: NRC: 0838A. ; - 5. Ir. diana and Michigan Electric Company letter to NRC, M. P. Alexich to H. R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, " Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos. I and 2, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Licensee Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74 Generic Letter 83-28, Additional Information Reouesteo in Response to Generic Letter 83-28," April 10,1985, AEP: NRC: 0838H.

' 6. Indiana and Michigan Electric Corgany letter to NRC, M.P. Alexich to - H. R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, " Generic Letter 83-28, Additional Information on Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, December 9, 1985. 7. Telecon, D. Lasher, NRC to J. Feinstein, Indiana and Michigan Electric -- ; Company March 26, 1986. 8. Duke Power Company letter to NRC, H. B. Tucker to D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRC, "McGuire Nuclear Station, Docket . Nos. 50-369, 50-370," November 4, 1983. .

9. Tennessee Valley Authority letter te NRC, L. M. Mills to E. Adensam, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 4, Division of Licensing, NRC, " Response . to D. G. Eisenhut's July 8, 1983 letter to 'all licensees...;" November 7,1983.

t 0

_. ______. _ _ _ _ _ . ______. _ . . _ . . _ _ - _ - - ______- - _ .- . _ . - . . - _ . - . - -. . - _

. . ,

r,oc ..,-, =.s. u m. u vo., _ . .. < .-_m ,u " E"i" 7 BISUOGRAPHic DATA SHEET EGG-EA.7043

, see i.stouctio.e o. t=e . eve.se z ei.u ..o mer.'" * " ' ' ' ' ' ' " , Conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. I and

2, Cook Units 1 and 2. William B. McGuire Nuclear Station , , , , , . ,c. , ,,..a r , , Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 & 2 , j ....

, , , , . , , , Apri1 1986 . e., ...o., na o R. VanderBeek, R. Haroldsen ,t= .... | - April 1986 ' .ev er.5. , o.. ... w ...... o c.o..e. r . ,v. 4= . <. c , . ' EG8G Idaho, Inc. - . ,, o...,% .c- Idaho Falls,' ID 83415

,. o. oo.c e.r .v .oo.... - e.c , . . .ren on . .on Division of Systems Integration Technical Evaluation Report Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission " " " ' " ' * " ' * * * " - * * "

Washington, DC 2,0555 , or

119w Lt 4.t... .of te ,,

'~ ~ 13 .esta.Cf JES see. sr 'em, This EG8G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of.the submittals for ' - conformance to generic letter 83-28 Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit flos.1 and 2. Cook Unit Nos.1 and 2. William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. I and 2. Sequoyah Nuclear plant, Unit Nos. I and 2. ,

t - . ,

i ' . | ! i . coc...,r.. 6...... ,.o oscuc..,v:.. i p,.g,.,- Limited Distribution

,. a c...- ..is.. .:., es

* . *q ,eppo

, . oisr .... con ~e o ve. Unclassified - r.. . | Unclassified , , .. . c . ..s n

.....c. 1

, B-

_- _m. . . _ . . . _ . , _ . _ _ _ . _ , _ _ , , , _ , . , _ _ . , . . - _ , , , , , , . , .. . . , _ - . , ,_ . _ , , , , . _ , , _ , _ . . , , , _ - . . . , , . - , . .