ML20138Q705

SER Accepting Util Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.1 & 3.2.3,re post-maint Testing

ML20138Q705
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	12/06/1985
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20138Q704	List: ML20138Q702 ML20138Q705 ML20138R898
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8512270400
Download: ML20138Q705 (2)

Text

. .

ENCLOSURE 2 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT GENERIC LtIIER 83-28, ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING (RTS COMPONENTS, ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS)

GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-416 AND 50-417 INTRODUCTION AND SUP9tARY Generic Letter 83-28 describes intermediate term 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.

The attached report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by Mississippi Power and Light Company, the licensee for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, 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 the attached 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.

8512270400 851206 PDR ADOCK 05000416 P PM

2 EVALUATION The licensee for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 4, 1983, December 14, 1984, January 16, 1985, and September 30, 1985. The licensee stated in these sub-mittals that there were no post-maintenance testing requirements in Technical Specifications for either reactor trip system or other safety-related com-ponents which degraded safety.

CONCLUSION Based on the licensee's statement that no post-maintenance test requirements were found in Technical Specifications that degraded safety, the staff concludes that the licensee's responses are acceptable for Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-?8.