ML20215K984
| ML20215K984 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1986 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215K979 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, GL-84-15, TAC-57383, NUDOCS 8610280412 | |
| Download: ML20215K984 (3) | |
Text
.
Er: CLOSURE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT GEf!ERIC LEIIER 83-28, ITEM 5 3._1_.3 AND 3.2_.3_
~
PO5T-MAINTENANC_E_ TE51ING (RTS COMPONENTS, ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPOFENTS)
WOLF CREEK GEhTRATIriG STATION.1) NIT 1
'~
DOCKET fRT.70-_482 INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
I 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 I of Salem Nuclear Power Plant.
This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by Kansas Gas and Electric Company, the licensee for the Wolf Creek Ger,erating Station, Unit I 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.
l The requirenents for these two items are identical with the exception that item s
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 denenstrated to degrade rather than enhance safety. Appropriate changes to these test re-quirenents, with supporting justification, shall be submitted for staff approval.
8610280412 861022 PDR ADOCK 05000482 P
PDR a
n EVALUATION The licensee for the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit I responded to these 2
requirements with an initial submittal dated November 15, 1983.
The licensee's response given in this submittal did not directly address the concerns of these 3
items. The licensee submitted an additional response dated August 12, 1986.
In this submittal, the licensee stated that they had reviewed their Technical Speci-fications and that there were no post-maintenance testing requirerrents in Technical Specifications for either reactor trip system or other safety-related corrponents which degraded safety other than one item that identified testing of the diesel generators as potentially excessive. The licensee plans to propose changes to their Technical Specifications under G. L. 84-15 to address this concern about diesel generator testing.
CONCLUSION Based on the licensee's statement that no other post-maintenance test requirerrents were found in Technical Specifications that degraded safety, and their statement that Technical Specification changes addressing this item will be submitted in response to G. L. 84-15 guidance, we find the licensee's responses acceptable for Items 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of Generic Letter 83-28.
l
.n,
. - -.. ~,
e 3-v REFERENCES 1.
NRC Letter. D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors,
?pplicants 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, G. L. Koester Kansas Gas 8 Electric Company, to H. R. Denton, USNRC, dated November 15, 1983.
3.
Letter, G. L. Koester, Kansas Gas & Electric Company, to H. R. Denton, I
Director, Office o' Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, dated October 3,1986.
f e
i i
-,-,--m
,. _ -