ML20136C425
| ML20136C425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136C358 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8511210087 | |
| Download: ML20136C425 (2) | |
Text
__
- .a mu o
UNITED STATES 8
~,%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 y*****j ENCLOSURE S_AFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING (RTS COMP 0NENTS, ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS)
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N0. 50-348 AND 50-364 INTRODUCTION 1
~
Generic Letter 83-28 describes intennediate tenn actions to be taken by licensees and applicants to address the generic issues raised by the two ATWS events that occurred at Unit 1 of Salem Nuclear Power Plant.
This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by Alabama Power Company, the licensee for the Farley Plant Units 1 and 2 for Items 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 report.
The requirements for these two items are identical with the exception that Item 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 requirements 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 approval.
EVALUATION The licensee for the Farley Plant Unitg 1 and 2 responded to ghese requirements with submittals dated November 4, 1983 and February 15, 1985. The licensee stated in these submittals that there were no post-maintenance testing requirements in Technical Specifications for either reactor trip system or other safety-related components which degraded safety.
ShR 8
DO K P
\\
2 CONCLUSION, Based on the licensee's statement that no post-maintenance test requirements were found in Technical Specifications that degraded safety, we fin ~d the licensee's responses acceptable for Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28.
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, F. L. Clayton, Jr., Alabama Power Co. to S. A. Varga, NRC, November 4,1983.
3.
Letter, F. L. Clayton, Jr., Alabama Power Co. ' o S. A. Varga, NRC t
i l
February 6,1984.
l 4.
Letter, F L. Clayton, Jr., Alabama Power Co. to S. A. Varga, NRC, February 15, 1984.
5.
Letter, R. P. Mcdonald, Alabama Power Co. to S. A. Varga, NRC, April 22,1985.
i W
I l
l
. -.mm...
..m..
.---m
-.m m.
2a.
am m.
_.____-.-,__.._______m_______-____m--_
_---_m___m.,
. m -m.
m m.