ML20134P386
| ML20134P386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1985 |
| 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 8509060267 | |
| Download: ML20134P386 (6) | |
Text
__ ____
4
'o UNITE D STATE 5 l'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
waswisetoN, D. C 20555
,/
June 26, 1985 g>
- h. i b$ bWl{l){f Docket No. 50-438
,Al - l E ;q MEMORANDUM T0: Martin J. Virgilio, Group Leader Technical Specification Review Group Division of Licensing FROM:
Dean Houston, Reactor Engineer Technical Specification Review Group Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION OF REGION IV COMMENTS ON RIVER BEND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (FINAL DRAFT)
By memoranda dated May 13 and May 30, 1985, Region IV provided coments regarding the River Bend Technical Specifications (Final Draft). Resolution of their coments is provided in the enclosure.
A copy of the enclosure should be forwarded to Region IV with an appropriate cover sheet prior to their review of the revised Technical Specifications intended as Appendix A to the Operating License, fn dodcj
/ #. D. Houston, Reactor Engineer M
l
[
Technical Specification Review Group Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Resolution of Region IV coments on River Bend cc:
R. Benedict J. Jaudon (Reg. IV) 1 8509060267 850820 PDR FOIA Qmf PLETTIN05-511 PDR
Enclosure Resolution of Comments by Region IV Regarding River Bend Technical Specifications Memorandum of May 13. 1985 (1). 1.5. 4.6.6.3.a.1 Concern - Surveillance requirements for hydrogen ignitors may violate ALARA principles.
Resolution - Applicant's reluctance to provide a Technical Specification in this area resulted in the staff proposing a Tech Spec patterned after Grand Gulf. Subsequent discussions with the applicant have produced a revision of this specification that will simplify surveillances and allow testing from remote locations outside containment. Therefore, ALARA concerns should be resolved. No further action is required.
(2). T.S. 3/4.8.1.1.2.f.9 Concern - Technical Specification specified a load of 330 Kw for D/G A and B rather than 3130 Kw as rated.
Resolution - This was a typographical error and will be correctly revised to 3130 Kw in the next draft. No further action is required.
(3). T.S. 3/4.8.1.2.f.12.
l Concern - Technical Specification limit of 110% appears to be arbitrary.
Resolution - The range 1 10% appears to be established in the Standard Technical Specifications and has been stated as such in all of the recent plant Technical Specifications which were reviewed. Obviously, the range has been found acceptable for some time. No further action is required.
(4)
T.S. 4.8.1.1.2.f.13
)
Concern - Technical Specification is vague about manual starts and questions why an ECCS actuation signal is not simulated to determine D/G startup even with the lockouts.
Resolution - Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.2.a.4 addresses manual start testirig of all diesels. Additional manual start tests seem unnecessary. Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.2.f.7 addresses diesel testing upon ECCS actuation signal and verifying that all lockouts are bypassed except those that will do extensive damage to the diesel.
The two referenced specifications appear to fulfill the concerns stated above. No further act'?n is required.
. {
(5). T.S. 3/4.8.3 Concern - Reviewer questions the removal of the UPS from the line during equalization charge. Further, the "and/or" phrase between Div. I and Div. !! is felt to be in error and should be "either."
Resolution - The footnote discussing the removal of the UPS has been deleted in the latest revision of Technical Specifications.
For the discussion on "either," it appears that the "and/or" clause gives the same interpretation for action as replacing with "either".
No further action is required.
(6). T.S. 3/4.8.4.1 Concern - Technical Specification 4.8.4.2 should correctly be 4.8.4.1.
Resolution - Technical Specification numbering has been corrected in latest version. No further action is required.
(7). T.S. 3/4.8.4.3 Concern'- Bus B VAC limits are not specified.
Resolution - Applicant has performed the tests and supplied the necessary information. Bus A and B limits in the latest revisions are now the same. No further action is required.
(8).T.S.4.9.2.c.3.a.
Concern - Technical Specification allows an SRM count rate of less than 0.7 cps, lower than normal limits.
Resolution - This is true during fuel unloading only. During fuel loading, the count rate must be at least 0.7 cps. The specification is consistent with the STS and other plant Technical Specifications.
No further action is required.
(9)
T.S. 4.10.1, 4.10.3, 4.10.5 Concern - Reviewer questions whether a second qualified licensed operator should be present for these tests.
Resolution - Of the five tests listed in 3/4.10, two require a second i
licensed operator (4.10.2 and 4.10.3) while the others don't. This is l
consistent with the BWR STS. No further action is required.
. (10) T.S. 4.10.2 Concern - Question related to movement of control rods from 100% rod density instead of 75%.
Resolution - While 75% is in brackets in the BWR STS, a final value of 75% rod density is consistent with issued BWR Tech Specs.
No further action is required.
(11) T.5. 4.3.2.1 Conceg - Manual initiation channel functional test is confusing for various lino items.
Resolution - Table 4.3.2.1 was revised to specify this manual initiation test only for thoge items where it could be perforrned without lifing leads and installing temporary jurrpers. No further action is required.
(12) T.S. 3.3.2-2 Concerns - Trip function 1.a. is shown as < - 45.5", should be 1 - 45.5".
m Resolution - Limit was revised to 1 - 45.5".
No further action is required.
(13) T.S. 4.2.1 Concern - APLHGR5 are given for 5 fuel types while the FSAR shows only 3.
Identification of at least one fuel type on a figure is in error since Figures 3.2.1-1 and 3.2.1-2 are shown as the same fuel type.
Resolution - Applicant has revised the FSAR to show 5 fuel types. NRR has reviewed and will provide SER in next supplement. Notation for Figure 3.2.1-1 was changed to P851B071, correcting the error.
No furtner action is required.
(14) T.S. 3/4.5.2 Concern - In LCO 3.5.2.e, reference to specification 3.5.3.6 is in error, should be 3.5.3.b.
Resolution - Technical Specification has been revised to correctly reference 3.5.3.b.
No further action is required.
(15) T.5. 3/4.5.3 5
Concern - Section 4.5.3.2.b is missing.
Resolution - Section 4.5.3.2.b has been adoed to the latest revision.
No further action is required.
. (16) 1. 5. 4. 6.1.1. b.
Concern - Double asterisk footnote appears to be redundant.
Resolution - To be specific, the footnote may indeed be redundant.
However, it aids in the interpretation of the specifications, thus will stay. No further action is required.
(17) T.S. 4.6.5.1.a.
Concern - Reviewer questioned the designated airlock test at 19.2 psig.
Resolutio_n - Tech Spec 4.6.2.3.b requires this test to be performed at 19.2 psid, thus the error was only in the units psig to psid. No further action is required.
(18) T.S. 4.6.5.1.a Concern - Building and annulus pressures in Tech Specs do not agree with SER.
Resolution - Pressure values in Tech Specs come from a revised FSAR.
Staff will provide SER to support these values. No further action is required.
(19) T.S. 4.6.5.1.c.1 and 2 Concern - Flow rates and times for the SGTS do not agree with the SER.
Rerolution - SGTS values come from a revised FSAR. Staff will provide SER to support these values. No further action is required.
(20) T.S. 4.8.1.1.2.f.
Concern - Frequency of testing appears to be in error, should be 18 months instead of 8 months.
Resolution - Typographical error dropped the 1 from 18.
Frequency has been corrected to 18 months. No further action is required.
l l
l
C Memorandum of May 30. 1985 (1) Table 3.3.3-2 Concern - Trip Setpoints and Allowable Values appear to be in error in numerous cases.
Resolution - Setpoints and Values have been corrected in latest revision.
No further action is required.
(2)
T.S. 4.6.1.9.3 Concern - Procedure addresses 24" and 36" valves while Tech Specs address only 36" valves.
Resolution - The 24" valves are not and will not be environmentally qualified.
T.S. 3.6.2.7 addresses the restrictions on the 24" valves.
l T.S.3.6.1.9 is limited to only the 36" valves. No further action is required.
(3)
T.S. 4.6.6.3.b.and c.
Concern - Same as Item 1 of 5/13/85 memo above.
(Hydrogen ignitors in
(
radiation zone).
Resolution - Same as given above.
Revised Tech Spec simplifies surveillance testing. No further action is required.
I (4)
T.S. 4.8.1.1.2.f.7 Concern - Same or similar to Item 4 of 5/13/85 memo above (Manual starts I
and Bus UV actuation).
I I
Resolution - Actuation by various signals presented throughout 4.8.1.1, 1
Manual in 4.8.1.1.2.a.4 and UV in 4.8.1.1.2.f.4 in conjunction with UV trip related to limits in 4.8.4.3.
No further action is required.
{
1