ML20247A706
| ML20247A706 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247A678 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8907210293 | |
| Download: ML20247A706 (1) | |
Text
- - - _ _ _ _ - _. -
4 3',
a neg UNITED STATES.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
o
[
?E-wAsmworow, o. c.aosss -
t-e E....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION'
'GPU NUCLEAR' CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER'AND LIGHT COMPANY OY3TER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 4.5.2-REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM RELIABILITY - ON-LINE TESTING x
e 1.0' INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
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 requires on-line functional testing of.the reactor trip system, including. independent testing i-11 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 designed to permit this periodic on-line testing to justify not making-modifications to permit such testing.
By letters dated November 14, 1983, June 12, 1985.and May 15, 1989, the licensee, GPU Nuclear. Corporation, (GPUN) responded to the staff position regarding Item 4.5.2 of Generic-Letter
'83-28.
Our review of these responses finds'them to be acceptable.
2.0 EVALUATION' In.GPUN's first submittal dated November 14, 1983, the licensee stated that the Oyster Creek Rcactor Trip System was designed to pemit on-line testing of the reactor trip system. Justification of the adequacy of current functional testing.of the scram pilot valves and-the backup scram valves would be provided.
In their June 12, 1985 submittal the licensee stated that the analysis contained in GE Topical Report NEDC-30844 and subsequent plant specific analysis' supported their conclusion that current functional testing.
intervals for the scre.m pil" valves were adequate but did not address testing of tne backup scram valves In their May 15, 1989 submittal they committed to
' test the backup scram valves at refueling outages.
3.0 CONCLUSION
The staff concludes that this response is acceptable since the licensee's response meets the staff position.
Principal Contributor:
D. R. Lasher Dated: July 17, 1989 k
8907210293 890717 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P
.__ _____ -._ _. _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ ____ _ _ j