ML20247D978

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Safety Evaluation Supporting Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 4.5.2 Re Reactor Trip Sys reliability-on-line Testing
ML20247D978
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Waterford
Issue date: 03/23/1989
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20247D963 List:
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8903310262
Download: ML20247D978 (1)


Text

.

UNITS 0 STATss a

I NUCLEAR MEGULATORY COMMISSION g

wasunserom.o.c.ssues -

\\..... #

SAFETY EVALUATION.BY THE 0FFICE.0F NUCLEAR. REACTOR. REGULATION RELATED.T0 GENERIC LETTER.83-28. ITEN.4.5.2 REACTOR TRIP. SYSTEM RELIABILITY.. 0N-LINE TESTING LOUSISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3 DOCKET.N0. 50-382 INTRODUCTION AND $UIMARY Generic Letter 83-28 was issued by NRC on July 8, 1983, indicating actions to be taken by applicants and licensees based on the generic implications of the Salem ATWS events. Item 4.5 states a staff position which mquires on-line functional testing of the reactor trip system, including independent testing of the diverse trip features of the reactor trip breakers, for all plants.

Item 4.5.2 requires applicants and licensees with plants not currently idesigned to pemit this periodic on-line testing to justify not making modifications to permit such testing. By letters dated November 4, 1983, and June 18, 1987, the licensee, Louisiana Power & Light Company, r2sponded to the staff position regarding Item 4.5.2 of Generic Letter 83-26. Our review of these responses finds them to be acceptable.

EVALUATION In their first submittal dated November 4, 1983, the licenses stated that Waterford 3 was designed to pemit on-line testing of the reactor trip system area that periodic on-line testing would be perfomed. Further, in their last submittal, they stated that the plant was designed to allow independent on-line verification of the operability of the reactor trip breaker shunt and undervoltage trip attachments and that such testing would be done.

CONCLUSION The staff concludes that this response is acceptable since the licensee's response meets the staff position.

Principle Contributor:

D. Lasher 1

Dated: March 23, 1989 r

gt3aggggg;8agg2 P

_ j