ML20235V152
| ML20235V152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Perry, Pilgrim, Susquehanna, Columbia, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Quad Cities, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1987 |
| From: | Farmer F EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235V135 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001, CON-FIN-D-6002, FOIA-87-644 EGG-NTA-7471, TAC-54010, TAC-54011, TAC-54012, TAC-54017, TAC-54018, TAC-54033, TAC-54038, TAC-54040, TAC-59513, TAC-60968, TAC-61035, TAC-61708, NUDOCS 8710150012 | |
| Download: ML20235V152 (24) | |
Text
'.
D k
,, n r-i,.k # '
s3; s g. -
~3 s'
'y
\\
.i 5 IGG NTA-7471 i
August 1987 l
j f
INFORMALMEPORT,
v; i i, i
,.g
^
h' '
f E JEOKt' CAL EVALUATION REPORT, REACTOR' TMP SYSTEM [
ELMBI!.!TY CONFORMANCE TO ITEN 4.5J &T GENERICi, LETTER 83-28. PEACH BOTTOM-2 AfD -3, PERRY-1 AND >
)
-2. PILGRIM-1.' QUAD CITIES-1 AND -2, RIVER BEND-1 l
'5HOREHAM, SUSQUEHANNA-1 AND -2, VERMONT ' YANKEE, m t:
f L
- i. m y
)
F. G. Farmer g -,
1:
(
l, J
. 3 y [L n
] $f.
fl[Y
~
).,
f s
'4
' I.
- m.,
[.[
k
'S m
...c g, -
.6 ^ ^
# ~'
I
- frkN, sh;;.-
'}
f p;
gr g
=
b
. 5,.,
l Y
Ma.
i
-w 6!.s
.r 1
q
,/
q 4
f.'.:
I/1'eD& red f0N the l-k goog um g
?:
- l %
., j.'
i!.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION
~
< w. 'h
(... -..;.,..
7
. hfb~'Ih.!.
e
~~
l k'
1 hp' '.1 0710150012 870828 g.. '... l..
- F tiOOCK 05000271 i
h,.
?[,g - N. r:
--~~
b
-l'
~1 dffki!.k.M h[fh kNb2 '
i E
. z,
, ~-
- Jm
{
,v,. f.
i j + ): -
t t',
. F,s
- o?
j
,5
.1 j
s.;
a p.
- '4.
e 7i:
- iL I
.j
- [
l
.a
.'. m -
- bu i
- Mt h-il )
O!SCt. AIMER 4
The book was preoered es en account of wort openseed by en egency of the Unned States Commment. Nether the Urwied States Gewomment mer any agency thereof,
)!
not any of their emosoyees, makes any wortanty, escrees er ingeod, er eseumes any
.- g hi legal notely or renpormtety for the accuracy, sempioneness, er usefulness of any
,)"
. J nnformenon. 6pperatus, product or procese diecleted, or sapresents lhet its use would
??
?
not mfringe pnvetely owned rights. References hevost to any spoonc commertnel r;
oreduct, process, or serwce by trace name, trademort, manufacturer. or otherwaes.
if 3
coes not necessenty constitute or imotv its endorsement, recommendeten, or fewt ang l[
I by the United States Govemment or any atency thersel. The views one opruarA of J*J, autnors expressed herein do not receaserdy state or rehect those of the Urvied States L
covernment or any agency thereof, m
- 1 55 (i:
i i
i O
4
-5 9
EGG-NTA-7_471
-)
o TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT-REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABIL7TY CONFORMANCE TO ITEM 4.5.2 0F GENERIC LETTER 83-28..
PEACH BOTTOM-2 AND'-3 PERRY-1 AND -2 PILGRIM-1 QUA0 CITIES-1'AND -2:
RIVER BEND-1 SHOREHAM
^SUSQUEHANNA-l'AND.-2
> JJ VERMONT YANKEE M,.
WNP-2
@g
. jl m
w
%ga
~ f.
r F. G. Farmer
)p.
l[
g 3
y/
Published August 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory -
EG&G Idaho, Inc.
,h '
.g.
h.
a Prepared-for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN Nos.'D6001 and 06002
y t;.
i; 1
'~
ABSTRACT l
1 This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals for.
5 some of tFs General Electric (GE) nuclear plants for conformance to Generic 4p Letter 83-28, Item 4.5.2.
The report includes the following plants, all-rj, GE, and is in partial fulfillment of the following. TAC Nos.:
iW
~$
'.. di
- .p Plant Docket Number, TAC Number Li ddl Peach Bottom-2 40*277-J4010' E$
Th Peach Bottom-3
<50-278'
'540-11~
Pe rry-1 50-440' 41708-
['
Perry-2 (OL)
A 50 441' N/A
'l.
1 Pilg rim-1 50-293' 54012' Quad Cities-1 (l) 10-254L,
-54017 If.((
Quad Cities-2
,50-065 '
~54018-River Bend-1 3R-A58 ~
41035-
- ,q 5horeham (OL)
'50-322'
-6095L 5.p. g,,
Susquehanna-1 50-387 '
54033:-
.?
i f
'i Susquehanna-2 50-388 '
-59513-Vermont Yankee 50-27 C
$4038-
~
l WNP-2 50-397~
54040-
,4 e
l 11
~;.-
,j
.f 1
.1
{
.)
l FOREWORD
\\
This report is provided as part of the program for evaluating-licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28. " Required Actions
)$g-Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATVS Events." This' work is.
.1 q
y conducted for the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering and System Technology, by EG&G -
Idaho, Inc.
x f.
i The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission funded the work under'the -
. llEg authorization, B&R 20-19-19-11-3, FIN Nos. 06001 and 06002.
d
$ j b ?
l m
..f i
..4
{
.1 f, -
i j
1 1
1
~.
iii 1
I l.)
{_
n~j n
CONTENTS
.o AESTRACT.............................................................
11 FOREWORD.............................................................-
111 1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................
1.
2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.............................................
2 3.
GROU P REV I EW RESU LT S............................................
4 4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR P EACH BOTTDM-2 AND -3........................
5 4.1 Evaluation................................................
5
- ,p, ^
4.2 Conclusion................................................
.5 0?,se 5.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PERRY-1 AND -2...............................
6-ok@'
\\
5.1 Evaluation...............................................
b r.;
je 5.2 Conclusion................................................
6-
},u, by 6.
R EVI EW RE SU LTS FOR P I LGRIM-1....................................
17-sg1 6.1 Evaluation................................................
7
$b R$
1 6.2 Conclusion................................................'
7.
fjg S0i 7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR QUAD CITI ES-1 AND -2.........................
8 1
g j$%[.
7.1 Evaluation........................,.......................
8.
7.2 Conclusion...............................................
8 8
8.
REVI EW RE SULT S FOR RIVER BEND-1.................................
9 I,9 '
-n fj;k 8.1 Evaluation..................................,.............
9:
n 8.2 Conclusion................................................
9 9.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SHOREHAM.....................................
. I'0 9.1 Evaluation...............................................
10 9.2 Conclusion................................................
10 IC.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SUSQUEHANNA-1 AND -2...........................
11 10.1 Evaluation.................................................
11 iv
t 10.2 Conclusion..................................................
.11 i
- 11. REVIEW RESULTS FOR VERMONT YANKEE...............................
. 12
.}
11.1 Evaluation...................................................
12 q
-]
11.2 Conclusion................................................
12-
- 12. Review RESu uS 80R. -2..............
13 1
i 12.1 Evaluation................................................
- 13 J
i a
12.2 Conclusion................................................,
13 j
- 13. GROUP CONCLUSION................................................-
14'
- 14. REFERENCES.......................................................
15
,h s
y
- Z ng 2
W I
t
,y
..g
,t M
.}
y? _
,:']r l
'y l
, :)
I l
'O
]
e' l
l i
u q
q l
4
.t.
p d.
I TECHNICAL' EVALUATION REPORT q'.ji REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABILITY CONFORMANCE TO Yb
.4 ITEM 4.5.2 0F GENERIC LETTER 83-28 PEACH BOTTOM-2 AND -3 PERRY-1 AND -2 k,I, -
PILGRIM-1 w
QUAD CITIES-1 AND -2 RIVER BEND-1 3HOREHAM i
SUSOUEHANNA-1 AND -2 VERMONT YANKEE I#
VNP-2
,e 1.
INTRODUCTION k'
On July 8,1983, Generic Letter 83-28 was issued by D. G. Eisenhut,
_?
I Director of the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor i
Regulation, to all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for
- j operating licenses, and holders of construction permits. This letter 3
included required actions based on generic implications of the Salem ATWS i.
events. These requirements have been published in Volume 2 of NUREG-1000,
[
" Generic Implications of ATVS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant."2
- g h,
.s,
This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc., review of the subattials of some of the GE plants including Peach Bottom-2 and -3, Perry-1 and -2,
(#g Pilgrim, Quad Cities-1 and -2.
River Bend-1, Shoreham, Susquehanna-1 and Ey
-2, Vermont Yankee and WNP-2 for conformance to Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-28. The submittals from the. licensees utilized in these evaluations are referenced in Section 14 of this report.
k
-}
9 9
i 1
1 l
4 J
^
4 r
1
_- _= _-
a'
2.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Item 4.5.2 (Reactor Trip System Reliability - System Functional.
Testing -- On-Line Testing)' requires licensees and applicants with plants M
not currently designed to permit on-line testing-to justify not making w
2 modifications to permit such testing. Alternatives to on-line testing will be considered where special circumstances exist and where the objective of high reliability can be met in another way, item 4.5.2 may'be j
interdependent with Item 4.5.3 when there is a need to justify not.
performing on-line testing because of the peculiarities of a particular design.
t All portions of the Reactor Trip System that do_ not have on-line 3
testing capability will be reviewed under the. guidelines for thisl item.-.
Maintenance and testing of the Reactor Trip Breakers are also excluded from-4J this review, as they are evaluated under Itta 4.2.
This review of the
[
licensee / applicant submittals will:
ji
=
1.
Confirm that the licensee / applicant has identified those portions of j
the Reactor Trip System that are not on-line testab1'e. 'If the entire 2
Reactor Trip System is verified to be on-line testable, no further
(
review is required.
I c;
2.
Evaluate modifications proposed by licensees / applicants'to permit
- f on-line testing against the existing criteria for the design.of the h
)
protection systems for the plant being modified.
$l.
3.
Evaluate proposed alternatives to on-line testing of the Reactor Trip e
System for acceptability based on the following:
=
4!
a.
- a. The' licensee / applicant submittal substantiate's the impracticality.
of the modifications Lnecessary to permit'.on-line. testing,' and b.-
High Reactor Trip System availability (comparable to that which c
would be possible with on-line testing) is' achieved in another way. Any such proposed alternative must.be described in detail
~
y sufficient to-permit an independent'. evaluation ~of the basis and-V analysis provided in lieu of performing' on-line testing., Methods.
.c.
that may.be used. to demonstrate that the objective of high reliability has been met.may include the following:'
^
,i 1.
Demonstration by systematic analysis that testing at:
w shutdown intervals provides essentially equivalent reliability to that obtained by on-line testing'.at shorter-j intervals.
q, X.._
- 11. Demonstration that reliability equivalent to that obtained y;
by on-line testing is accomplished by ' additional redundant '
]
and diverse components or by other features.
k;
- sI
'ai 111. Development of a maintenance program' based.on early I
w replacement of critical components that-compensates forL the l
s lack of on-line testing. Such a. program would-require Y
analytical justification supported by. test data.,
.[
4 iv. Development of a test program that compensates for the lack of on-line testing, e. g., one which uses trend: analysis and.
l identification of safety margins for critical parameters of safety-related components.
Such a. program'would require analytical justification supported by test. data.
l.
g
=
4.
Wrify the capability to perform independent on'-line testing of f
4 the reactor trip system breaker undervoltage and sh'unt trip attachments on CE plants.
Information from licensees and:
applicants with CE plants will be reviewed to verify that they require independent on-line testing of the reac'or trip creaker undervoltage and shunt trip attachments.
3 2
41 9
3.
GROUP REVIEW RESULTS 3
I' The relevant submittals-from each of the GE reactor plants were e.iewed to determine compliance with Item 4.5.2.
First, the submittals-from each plant were. reviewed to establish that Item 4.5.2 was specifically acdressed.
Second, the submittals were evaluated to determine the extent.
.: which each of the GE plants complies with the staff guidelines for Item 4.5.2.
- r
-' t 1
.e
' t.
4
$y 3g
!lhh f*
H el
?
s.
6 f
i s
4 3
4.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PEACH BOTTOM-2 AND -3 4
4 4.1. Evaluation "g
Philadelphia Electric Company, the licensee for Peach Bottom-2 and -3,.
provided their response to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 4, k
1983.
In that response, the licensee confirms that the Peach Bottom j-Reactor Protection System (RpS) design,' with the exception of the backup scram valves, can be tested during reactor operation without causing a scram.
3.l t
N The licensee's response states that Peach Bottom does not perform O!
on-line testing of the backup scram valves because testing during operation h
would cause a plant scram; and the valves are independently tested during M
each refueling outage.
c, b 7lj.
k_
4.2 conclusion p
Y In as much as the Reactor Protection System includes those components f(.
necessary to trip the reactor, we find that the licensee's stated position
{
on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter, including their justification for not f,
h performing periodic on-line testing of the backup scram valves, meets the O
requirements and is, we believe, acceptable.
(n
- I,b,
a r
???W S
1
'j' i
"?
5
1 5.
REVIEV RESULTS FOR PERRY-1 AND -2 l
l 4
S.1 Evaluation l
i Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, the licensee for Perry-1 and j
applicant for perry-2, provided their response to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic
']
Letter on April 6,1984.
In that response, the licensee / applicant affirms
[
that Perry is designed to permit on-line testing of the Reactor Trip System, and provides a summary description of that testing.
The licensee's/ applicant's response states that Perry does not' perform on-line testing of the backup scram logic and valves because testing during h! -l operation would cause a plant scram; and the backup scram valves will be k,
independently tested during each rsfueling outage.
p 4}l q
5.2 Conclusion
]
y In as much as the Reactor Protection System includes those components necessary to trip the reactor, we find that the licensee's/ applicant's stated position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter, including their justification for not performing periodic on-line~ testing of the backup h
scram valves, meets the requirements and is, we believe, acceptable.
[j I
k I
f "i
i i
3
-st i
1 i
e i
i 6.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR PILGRIM-1
?-
l t
h i
6.1 Evaluation
?!e i
?
I Boston Edison Company, the licensee for Pilgria, responded to Item i-l 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 7,1983, and June 28, 1984.
In f
those responses, the licensee confirms that Pilgria performs periodic
}
on-line functional testing of the Reactor Trip System.
4 -!
1
)
The licensee's response states that Pilgria does not perform on-line e
1 testing of the backup scram valves because testing during operation would l
cause a plant scram; and the valves are independently tested during each e
+
refueling Outage.
2 e
d 6.2 Conclusion 1:
b' I
3 i
In as much as the Reactor Protection System includes those components
?
necessary to trip the reactor, we find that the licensee's stated position i
on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic letter, including their justification for not E:
performing periodic on-line testing of the backup scram valves, meets the
[
requirements and is, we believe, acceptable,
_[
t ii 4;
_k i
.A
.Lt
.4 4,,
c 54 4.
7 T3' 6
.4
l 4
7.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR QUAD CITIES-1 AND -2 7.1 Evaluation Commonwealth Edison, the licensee for Quad Cities-l' and -2, responded to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on' November 5,1983 and June 1,1984.-
4 In those responses, the licensee confirms' th6t on-line functional testing, e
of the Reactor Trip System is performed during normal plant operation.
The licensee's response states that Quad Cities-1 a'nd -2 do not-
. a.p perform on-line testing of the backup scram initiating logic and solenoid 14 i
valves because testing during operation would cause a plant scram; and t'he.
/
l backup scram initiating logic and solenoid valves are independently tested j
during each refueling outage.
}$
9:
7.2 Conclusion Y
.If.
k 1
In as much as the Reactor protection System includes those cen;:cnents i
necessary to trip the reactor, we find that the licensee's positios en ' Item 4.5. 2 of the Generic Letter, including their justification for not jg performing periodic on-line testing of.the backup scram initiating logic-M 4
1 and solenoid valves, meets the requirements and is, we believe, at:eptable.
y in 1
l
.M I
O 1
8
8.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR RIVER BEND-1 8.1 Evaluation Gulf States Utilities Company, the licensee for River Bend, responded to Ites 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on August 3,1984.
In that-response,
~
- pg the licensee confirms that the River Bend Reactor Protection System design j [
permits on-line testing of the RPS.
f 9
L t
The licensee's response does not address performance of on-line
'J f functional testing of the backup scram valves at River Bend.
[l j
1 l
8.2 Conclusion j
~
i d
te In as much as the Reactor Protection System includes those components necessary to trip the reactor, we find.that the licensee's stated position l
1 on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter is acceptable, provided the licensee 1
confirms that the backup scram valves are independently functionally tested fh on at least a refueling interval basis, 4
i.
a l h
.c 8
f I
- i. y' i
\\
}l I
?
4 s
e 1
9
s 9.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR SHOREHAM 9.1 Evaluation Long Island Lighting Company, the applicant for Shoreham,~ responded to-Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on December 4, 1984.
In that response, the applicant states that the Shoreham Reactor Trip System, with the exception of the backup scram valves, is designed to allow on-line testing,.
-[
and that such tests are performed at the-frequencies defined in the Technical Specifications.. The response includes a summary description of' that testing.
I The applicant's response states that Shoreham will not perform on-line l
testing of the backup scram valves because testing during operation would cause a plant scram; and the valves will be independently tested during each refueling outage.
9.2 Conclusion i
In as much as the Reactor Protection System includes those components necessary to trip the reactor, we find that the applicant's stated position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter, including their justification for not performing periodic on-line testing of the backup scram valves, meets the requirements and is, we believe, acceptable.
i l
i
.p
- h a;w I
1 s
10 m
4
- 10. REVIEV RESULTS FOR SUSQUEHANNA-1 AND 10.1 Evaluation Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, the licensee.for Susquehanna-1 and -2, responded to Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter on November 4,1983, l
and March 1, 1984.
In those responses, the licensee affirms'that on-line-functional testing of the reactor trip system is being performed at Susquehanna, with the exception of the backup scram valves.
The licensee states that the backup scram valves are not test'ed' on-line because-to do so would cause a reactor scram; however.the response.
does not identify the functional testing of these valves.
[
10.2 Conclusions 1
In as much as the Reactor Protection System includes those components
^
necessary to trip the reactor, we find that the licensee's stated position on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter is acceptable, provided the licensee-confirms that the backup scram valves are independently functionally tested on at least a refueling interval basis.
1 3
1 y
x t,,,
4
.i l
J
\\
6
.fe 11
!y 4
M__
..u---
11, REVIEW RESULTS FOR. VERMONT YANXEE 11.1 Evaluation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, the licensee for Vermont Yankee, responded to the Generic Letter on March 23, 1984, and July 3, a
1935. The licensee's responses confirm that on-line functional testing of the Vermont Yankee reactor trip system is performed on a regular basis.
J The licensee's response states that Vermont Yankee does not perform on-line testing of the backup scram valves because testing during operation ~
would cause a plant scram; and the valves are independently tested during each refueling outage.
11.2 Conclusion t
i In as much as the Reactor Protection System includes those components
'1 l
necessary to trip the reactor,-we find that the licensee's stated position f.
5 on item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter, including their justification for not-performing periodic on-line testing of the backup scram valves, meets the requirements and is, we believe, acceptable.
3
.f
)
Q,
- 4 e
l 4:
,q
?
1 y
l f
i
.f-w 12
- p l
y w.
}
{
j 12.
REVIEW RESULTS FOR WNP-2 l
12.1 Evaluation Washingten Public Power Supply System, the licensee for WNP-2, s
responded to the Generic Letter on November 18, 1983.
The licensee's 3
response states that WNP-2 is designed to permit on-line functional testing of the Reactor Protection System, with the exception of the backup scram valves.
s The licensee's response states that the backup scram valves are not 4(
j tested on-line because to do so would cause a reactor scram; however, the j
response does not identify the functional testing of these valves.
12.2 Conclusion I
i
,$h
-p In as much as the Reactor Protection System includes those components I
l necessary to trip the reactor, we find that the licensee's stated position
\\;
on Item 4.5.2 of the Generic Letter is acceptable, provided the licensee
-}
confirms that the backup scram valves are independently functionally tested on at least a refueling interval basis.
]:
l l
t
\\
me
- x'
)
y
,l -
13
~ _. _
s
,4
- 13. GROUP CONCLUSION We conclude that the licensee / app'licant responses for the listed GE plants for Item 4.5.2 of Genarte Letter 83-28 are acceptable, with the exceptions of the confirmations needed from River Bend, Susquehanna and WNP-2 identified in the individual plant evaluations.
5
.)
-j 4
l
\\
s
'b i
4 3
- 9 4
?.x
,t 4
,{
7.-
)
3 1
14-l 1
,.4 s
{
L
~
- 14. REFERENCESt l-4 1
3.
NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all. licensees of Operating Reacters, T
Applicants.for Operating License, and Holders of. Construction Permits, E-
" Required Actions Based on Generic Implications.of Salem ATVS. Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8,1983.
j(.
2.
Generic Implications of ' ATVS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant' NUREG-1000, Volume. l.. April 1983;. Volume 2, July 1983.
.[
3.
Philadelphia Electric Company.. letter to NRC, S. L.' 0altroff to D. G.;
)i Eisenhut, November 4,1983.
j 1
l 4
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company letter to NRC, M. R. Edelman1
- ! L to D. G. Elsenhut, " Response to Generic' Letter 83-28," April '6,1984.-
?
Y 5.
Boston Edison' Company letter to NRC, W. 0. Harrington to Office of!
i' i
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Response to Generic Letter 83-28,"
^
l Novemoer 7, 1983.
1
/
l 6.
Boston Edison Company letter to NRC. W. D. Harrington to Office of 3'
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Generic Letter 83-28 LSection 4.5:
-1 3
Functional Testi g et Backup Scram Valves," June 28,1984.
fn 7.
Commonwealth Edison letter to NRC, P. L. Barnes to Harold R. Denton,.
[
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,. November 5. '1983.
J;
'l 8.
Commonwealth Edison letter to NRC, P. L. Barnes'to Harold R.L0enton, E-Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, June 1, 1984.
j 9.
Gulf States Utilities Company letter, J. E. Booker to 0.- G.~ Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " River Bend Station - Unit 1," August-1 a
3, 1984.
l
('
10.
Long Island Lighting Compeny letter, J; D. Leonard, Jr. to. Harold'R.
y-t Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,E" Generic k
Letter 83-28, Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem.
j ATWS Events, Submittal of Additional Information," December 4,1984 12.
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company letter, N. W. Curtis to D. G.
f.
Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Response to Generic Letter 5~
83-28," November'4,'1983.
?
12.
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company letter, N. W. Curtis to 0. G.
Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, " Revised Response to
.}i Generic Letter 83-28," March 1,1984.
y T
13.
R Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation letter to.NRC, W. P. Murphy jL to Office of Nuclear' Reactor Regulation, March 23,.1984.
2 g
15 l
i
-4,
\\
l
I' 14.
Vomont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation letter to NRC, R. W. Capstick
- c ',
to Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, July 3,1985.
- 15. Vashington Public Power Supply Systes' letter to NRC, G. C. Sorenson to.
j Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Response.to Generic Letter i
83-28," November 18, 1983.
j 4
,6
,e
j r.
l f
a I
l I
_q;.
pd l.
s bf
- 5. '
r
-l 1
16 l.
L___-__-_
g er asaC 802es atJ a) e44 WA mWCalLA L 40WLA804V Ccematssice I h e i G 2 ' E Wa** 8 * ****"'* ** '4 8 **' N A d **
{
s',*/d',
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7471 a
Seei=a,mutficess Oas t=e agvgase fE'dNhMA[.EYALUATION REPORT, REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABIt.17Y
' ' ' " " ' ~
CONFORMANCE TO ITEM 4.5.2 0F GENERIC LETTER 83-28 PEACH 1
1 i
BOTTOM-2 AND -3, PERRY-1 AND -2, PILGRIM-1 AND -2, RIVER BEND-1, SHOREHAM, SUSQUEHANNd OVAD dITIES-1 VERMONT YANKEE. WNP-2 I AND -2,
,,4,,,,,on,,,,,,,,,,,
l
,,.a
, 4, _o n..
F. G. Farmer August 1987
]
. sa,e an oa t.nvio g
.ian August 1987 i
, 64 a* Ca wisG Oa cam 2 4 t no.* m aut a40 waeU=G 4008 4 u #a===m 4e can, e Pm044 C f'T maa.woma we.a t tww.g m EG&G Idaho, Inc.
P. O. Box 1625 l
' a ca 'aaa ' av **
l 1 s*o= son.%c omG4=ita tion siawa *=o weeg =G aoon464 seus.ee ge gnew see tvP608aeroaf Sivision of Engineering and Systen Technology j
)
i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
{
3.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dashingt.on, DC 20555
.,io..s......n.
o,..
r i
f i
l v
1
((
\\
This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals for some of the I
kneral F.lectric (GE) nuclear plants for conformance to Generic Letter 83-23, Item 4.5.2.
A I
l l
l 3
l 9
3 t
33% -.,,.,...,,..........x...a-,
',"'OL';"
4 Unlimited
. u eva.,. n.u,,,carios 4
, a s,....
o,.
.~oeo.i...
...n,
+
Unclassified Unclassified i, s..... e... c n
.....; i l
r
_ _ _ _ _. - - _ _ _ _ -