ML20141D422

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Forwards Safety Evaluation Re Util Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3, Post-Maint Testing. Responses Acceptable.Tech Specs Incorporating post-maint of Reactor Protection Sys Components Should Be Proposed
ML20141D422
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 03/31/1986
From: Zwolinski J
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Fiedler P
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
Shared Package
ML20141D423 List:
References
GL-83-28, TAC-50325, TAC-53864, NUDOCS 8604080012
Download: ML20141D422 (3)


Text

f-I Docket No. 50-219 Mr. P. B. Fiedler Vice President and Director Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731

Dear Mr. Fiedler:

SURJECT: REQUIRED ACTIONS BASED ON GENERIC IMPLICATIONS OF SALEM ATWS EVENTS (GENERIC LETTER 83-28) - ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.2.3 (POST MAINTENANCE TESTING) (TAC 50325,53864)

Pe:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station The NRC staff has completed the review of your responses dated November 14, 1983, and October 23, 1985, to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, Post Maintenance Testing, of Generic Letter (GL) 83-28 dated July 8, 1983. The staff concludes that your responses to these items for Oyster Creek are acceptable.

The staff's Safety Evaluation is enclosed.

This completes our review of Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of GL 83-28. The staff's review of your responses to other items of the generic letter is continuing.

You stated in your submittals that the Oyster Creek Technical Specifications (TS) do not require post-maintenance testing for the reactor protection system (RPS) components. You stated that you incorporate the post-maintenance testing requirements for these components into station procedures as were described in Inspection Report No. 50-219/84-31. The staff concludes, however, that the TS should require post-maintenance testing of RPS components and requests you to propose appropriate technical specifications requiring such testing. These specifications should be proposed before the restart from the Cycle 11 Refueling outage scheduled for April to October 1986.

Sincerely, GW W W 8604080012gogg9 DR ADOCK PDR John A. Zwolinski, Director

~

BWR Project Directorate #1 Division of BWR Licensing

Enclosure:

DISTRIBUTION Safety Evaluation EDocket.Filey RBernero CJamerson NRC PDR EJordan JDonohew cc w/ enclosure:

Local PDR BGrimes wolinski See next page BWD#1 Rdg JPartlow ACRS (10)

OELD GHolah AToalston DBL:PD#1ak DdL:PD#.

CJamerso W tm JZwol sk

$ / \\/86 l 3

g

$/g/86 86 L

b UNITED STATES 4,

["'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

aj WASHINGTON, D. C 20555 March 31, 1986 Docket No. 50-219 Mr. P. B. Fiedler Vice President and Director Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731

Dear Mr. Fiedler:

SUBJECT:

REQUIRED ACTIONS BASED ON GENERIC IMPLICATIONS OF SALEM ATWS EVENTS (CNERIC LETTER 83-28) - ITEMS 3.1.3 AND 3.7.3 (POST MAINTENANCE TESTING) (TAC 50325, 53864)

Re:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station The NRC staff has completed the review of your responses dated November 14, 1983, and October 23, 1985, to Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, Post Maintenance Testing, of Generic Letter (GL) 83-28 dated July 8, 1983. The staff concludes that your responses to these items for Oyster Creek are acceptable.

lne staff's Safety Evaluation is enclosed.

This completes our review of Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of GL 83-28. The staff's review of your responses to other items of the generic letter is continuing.

You stated in your submittals that the Oyster Creek Technical Specifications (TS) do not require post-maintenance testing for the reactor protection system (RPS) components. You stated that you incorporate the post-maintenance testing requirements for these components into station procedures as were described in Inspection Report No. 50-?19/84-31. The staff concludes, however, that the TS should require post-maintenance testing of RPS components and requests you to propose appropriate technical specifications requirina such testing. These specifications should be proposed before the restart from the Cycle 11 Refueling outage scheduled for April to October 1986.

Sincerely, 1JV(

Joh A. Zwolinski, Director RWR ro.iect Directorate #1 Division of BWR Licensing

Enclosure:

Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

Mr. P. B. Fiedler Oyster Creek Nuclear Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Generating Station cc:

Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

Resident Inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge c/o ll.S. NRC 1800 M Street, N.W.

Post Office Box 445 Washington, D.C.

20036 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 J.B. Libernan, Esquire Commissioner Bishop, Liberman, Cook, et al.

New Jersey Department of Energy 1155 Avenue of the Americas 101 Commerce Street New York, New York 10036 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Eugene Fisher, Assistant Director Reaional Administrator, Region I Division of Environmental Quality ll.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Environmental 631 Park Avenue Protection Kina of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 380 Scotch Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 BWR Licensing Manager GPU Nuclear 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 36 West State Street - CN 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Mayor Lacey Township 818 West Lacey Road Forked River, New Jersey 08731 D. G. Holland Licensing Manager Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 388

(

Forked River, New Jersey 08731 l

l l

l

_