ML20134P294
| ML20134P294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1985 |
| From: | Houston M NRC - TECH SPEC REVIEW GROUP |
| To: | Virgilio M NRC - TECH SPEC REVIEW GROUP |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132C450 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-511 NUDOCS 8509060231 | |
| Download: ML20134P294 (3) | |
Text
. _
4 //
/gha af g
'o UNITED STATES
['3,q ',j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,
t W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
June 21, 1985 Docket No. 50-MEMORANDUM F0p: Martin J. Virgilio, Group Leader Technical Speaification Review Group, DL FROM:
Dean Houston, Reactor Engineer Technical Specification Review Group, DL
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION OF CONTRACTOR (EG&G) COMMENTS ON RIVER BEND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATI,0NS (FINAL DRAFT)
On May 9,1985, a report was issued by EG&G describing their audit of the River Bend Technical Specifications (Final Draft) and identifying areas of the Technical Specifications that were either consistent or different in regard to the FSAR (through Amendment 18) or SER. For those areas which were consistent, we have no further response. For those areas which were different, we have addressed each item individually in the enclosure (Attachment 1) and have shown that appropriate action has been taken or that none is currently required. A copy of this memorandum will be provided to EG&G prior to their audit of the revised River Bend Tech Specs against the FSAR (through Amendment 20) and the CER (through SSER No. 2).
9?A& W Y Dean Houston, Peactor Engineer Technical Specification Review Group Division of Licensing
~
cc:
R. Benedict S. Bruske (EG8G)
C. Schulten ppOp 1 850820
,,h PLETTIN85-511 PDR
t Resolution of Comments by EG&G Regardino River Bend Technical Specifications 1.
Concern (Section I-Note *)-The Technical Specifications do not specify a change in PCPR from 1.06 to 1.07 after reload.
Resolution The Technical Specifications address only the MCPR limit for the current core configuration. If MCPR limits change with a reload, GSU will have to request an amendment and a change to the Technical Specifications for the core configuration at that time. For the Technical Specifications at this time, no further revision is required.
2.
Concern
~
k
_ _(Section V*)-fechnical Specification Table 3.6.4-1 does not list valve IRPS-V240 at penetration 1KJB-Z20. Also, two typographical errors in valve identification were noted: 1821A0VF)1)A should be 1821A0VF010A and 1821A0VF)3?B should be IB21A0VF0328.
~
-3 Pesolution The valve and penetration have been incorporated into Table 3.6.4-1 on' page 3/4 6-43.
The typographical errors have been confirmed and corrected as proposed. No further action is required.
3.
Concern (Section VI!!-Item 13*)-The Technical Specifications do not specifically identify the SLCS interlock with valve C41-F031 for periodic testing.
Resolution The applicant has indicated that the surveillance identified above is included in SR 4.1.5.b.3 which requires verification of valve postion and flow paths every 31 days. No further action is required.
l 4.
Concern (Section Vill, item 17*)-The Technical Specifications do not specifically identify the Digital Radiation Monitoring System (DRMS) for surveillance.
Resolution The DRMS system provides the isolation signal for containment purge isolation valves. This function is listed as item 1.C. in Table 3.3.2-1 and surveillance requirements for the system is listed as item 1.C in Table 4.3.2.1-1.
Specific reference to the DRMS system does not appear in the Technical Specifications. No further action is required.
"-Identity of comment in EG8G Draft Report
i
( 5.
Concern (Section !!!, Item 18.b*)-The Technical Specif' cations do not specifically discuss the periodic calibration of thermal oserloads.
Resolution Surveillance requirement 4.8.4.1.a.3 specifies testing of overcurrent protection devices such that the interruption of current will be within the associated thermal overload time delay band width for the specific current. This is intended to fulfill the calibration re-quirements as questioned above. No further action is required.
6.
Concern (Section Vill, item 19*)-The Technica1' Specifications do not address the overcurrent devices for emergency lichting in the control room.
Resolution Technical Specification 3.8.4.2, "Other Overcurrent Protection Devices "
does cover these areas - Main Control Room Lighting and RPS Alternate Source of Power. No further action is required.
7.
Concern (Section VIII, item 22*)-The Technical Specifications in Sections 6.9.1.5 and 6.9.1.6 do not address SRV failures as required.
Resolution Sectier.s 6.9.1.5 and 6.9.1.6 of the Technical Specifications have been revised to include a summary of SRV failures in the annual report and a discussion of SRV failures in the monthly report. No further action is required.
8.
Concern (Section Vi!!, I' tem 23*)-The Technical Specifications do not include the i
bypass timer or manual inhibit switch for the ADS system.
Pesolution The timer and switch for the ADS system have been installed and are included in the revised Technical Specifications in Tables 3.3.3-1, 3.3.3-2 and 4.3.3-1.
No further action is required.
- -Identity of comment in EG8G Draft Report
_-