ML20137H276
| ML20137H276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1985 |
| From: | Booker J GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508280240 | |
| Download: ML20137H276 (4) | |
Text
- _ - _ - -
}
o.
4
[
y GULF STATES UTELITIES COMPANY
{
l ea st o r s ic s a o x a s si.erAuuour rexas177o4 I
AREACODE 409 838-0639 i
f August 9, 1985 RBG - 21823 File No. G9.5 1
l i.
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Denton:
River Bend Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-458 I
j As requested by your Staff in a letter dated July 25,1985 Gul f States Utilities is providing a summary discussion of long term revisions i
for the River Bend Station Technical Specifications which are currently under consideration and may be pursued in the future. These revisions are considered enhancements to improve operational flexibility within the approved safety analyses and do not affect the certification provided l
today by separate correspondence, r
r
]
Sincerely,
, f.
~rk%
4
}
J. E. Booker Manager-Engineering, Nuclear fuels & Licensing j
River Bend Nuclear Group j
t l
JEB/ ERG /kt i
l i
h l
4 )
i I
1 0509280240 850009 PDR A00CK 0$000455 j
A PDR i
i i
l
r RIVER BEND TECENICAL SPECIFICATIONS FWHANCEMENT ITEMS i
l 1.
Page 3/4 1-7 a.
Make changes indicated on marked-up page 3/4 1-7.
b.
These changes will provide clarity of intent.
t 5
2.
Page 3/4 1-13 J
a.
Delete ACTION statement 3.a.2.
I b.
This change will delete an ACTION requirement which,
{
although can be performed on a BWR 6 RPCS instrumented plant with existing instrumentation, was intended to be 1
applicable and performed on BWR 4 and BWR 5 RSCS instru-i mented plants.
l 3.
Page 3/4 1-16 i
I a/b.
This entire technical specification should be rewritten.
I i
The real requirements for control rod withdrawal are covered explicitly in other technical specifications.
I This technical specification should either be rewritten
]
or deleted entirely with appropriate footnotes added to other corresponding technical specifications.
GSU has 1
already added several such footnotes for clarification and
)
continuity.
However, the intent is understood and can be j
complied with.
i
{
4.
Page 3/4 3-24 and 3/4 3-25 j
a.
Delete the 418 second response time requirements on all i
trip functions with the exception of the Main steam Line Isolation trip functions.
1 j
b.
This change would make this technical specification i
consistent with the bases which states that "except for t
the MsIVs, the safety analysis does not address i
individual sensor response times or the response times of the logic systems to which the sensors are connected." This is a Generic Issue not just River Bend.
4 i
I l
1 i
5.
Page 3/4 3-83 a.
Add notation "The provisions of Specification 3.9.4 are not applicable" to ACTION 81.
b.
This change will provide the flexibility to change modes while satisfying the accident monitoring LCO by reliance on the provisions of this ACTION statement.
1 6.
Page 3/4 4-11 a.
Change "...two othe r closed manual..." to "...one othe r closed manual..." in ACTION c.
b.
This change permits the flexibility to close at least one other closed manual, deactivated automatic or check valve i
to isolate a high pressure portion of the system with greater than acceptable leakage from the low pressure portion of the system.
7.
Page 3/4 7-19 4
a.
Change the ASTM standards referenced in Surveillance Requirement 4.7.6.1.2.b.
to be consistent with those in the diesel generator technical specification, 4.8.1.1.2.d.
page 3/4 8-4.
l\\
b.
The fuel oil used for the diesel driven fire pump and the diesel generators is the same feel oil.
The individual technical specifications require different tests.
This change would make the fuel oil testing consistent.
t l
3 l
2 l
7
~
REACTIVITY CONTROL SYSTEMS LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION (Continued)
ACTION:
(Continued) 4.
No " slow" control rod, " fast" control rod with individual scram insertion time in excess of the limits of ACTION a.2, or other-wise inoperable control rod occupies an adjacent location in any direction, including the diagonal, to another such contrcl rod.
{
Otherwise, be in at least HOT SHUTOOWN within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, j
-b.
Uith : " sic " control--rM(s-)-not-satis fying ACTJON+1r bover a
O +h u w a e.,
1.
Declare the " slow" control rod (s) inoperable, and T*f av1 PerformtheSurveillanceRequirementsofSpecification4.1.3.2.c/
Ad. w 2.
4) at least once per 60 days when operation is continueo witn three o / p.y e or more " slow" control rods declared ineperable.
J 3H I-l Ott,e.i:c, be " at-leest-M0f-SHttT90WN-within-4i!-hours--
c.
With the maximum scram insertion time of one or more control rods exceeding the maximum scram insertion time limits of Specifica-tion 3.1.3.2 as determined by Specification 4.1.3.2.c, operation may continue provided that:
1.
" Slow" control rods, i.e., those which exceed the limits of Specification 3.1.3.2, do not make up more than 20% of the 10%
sample of control rods tested.
2.
Each of these " slow" control rods satisfies the limits of ACTION a.1.
3.
The eight adjacent control rods surrounding each " slow" control rod are:
gy g, 7 y,. _.,,, y 9 f u J
Y a)
Demonstrated through measurement withiri 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to satisfy the maximum scram insertion time limits of Specifica-tion 3.1.3.2, and c)
4 The total numcer of " slow" control rods, as determined oy Spec 1-fication 4.1.3.2.c, when added to the sum of ACTION a.3, as determined by Specification 4.1.3.2.a and b, does not exceed 5.
Otherwise, be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
d.
The provisions of Specification 3.0.4 are not applicaole.
j$. O RIVER BEND - UNIT 1 3/4 1-7