ML20151K876

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Informs That Final Draft Tech Spec Sections 6.2.1,6.5.1, 6.5.3,6.8 & 6.10 Re QA Acceptable
ML20151K876
Person / Time
Site: River Bend 
Issue date: 05/28/1985
From: Grimes B
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To: Crutchfield D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20151K803 List:
References
FOIA-85-511 NUDOCS 8506040711
Download: ML20151K876 (1)
v • d • e


Text

.

W..g +..

.aaag$8,

- /r UNITED STATES i

p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

j wasmmcTom, o. c.2 ossa

\\,...../

-MAY 2 81985 Docket No. 50-458 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Dennis Crutchfield,' Assistant Director for Safety Assessment Division of Licensing 1

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Brian K.~ Grimes, Director

)

Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor, y

and Technical Training Center Programs 1

Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

QA REVIEW 0F RIVER BEND UNIT 1 FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL:

SPECIFICATIONS I

i i

Your memorandum dated April 19, 1985, enclosed the final draft of River Bend

}

Unit 1 Technical Specifications for review and comment. We have reviewed i

Sections 6.2.1, 6.5.1, 6.5.3, 6.8, and 6.10 as they relate to QA and find them acceptable as is.

Any questions you might have concerning this review should be direct to John Gilray at x27242.

i hn rian K. Grimes, Director Division of Qu'ality Assurance, Vendor, i

and Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement I

/

3 0 6 o f D 7 r X b'r

/

~ ~.. -.... _...

- " ~ "

e

. 1:.. A32D?*'

lC c,p#

t, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3'

'2 j

REGION IV t

%, s,,,#

811 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000

[

ARLINGTON. TEXAS 79011 MM 3 01985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Dennis M. Crutchfield, Assistant Director for Safety Assessment, Division of Licensing Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, Division of Licensing i

FROM:

Richard P. Denise, Director, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects, Region IV

SUBJECT:

FINAL DRAFT OF THE RIVER BEND UNIT 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS This provides additional information to that forwarded in our letter on the same subject dated May 13, 1985.

Additional review of the findings of the Region IV inspection t'eam identified an additional five items which appear to be under NRR cognizance. These are documented in the attached inspection report forms. All findings will also be documented in Inspection Report 50-458/85-35.

T. A. Mb, P'sil Richard P. Denise, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects l

Attachments:

As stated i

I l

l l

f

_m_

. 9A1 1 3 (,f W##

~

P.>l?p -

=

8 /4

~..... _ _.... _ _

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: Ta.5/e. 3,3,3 -2 PAGE,NO.: 41.MW4W TS REQUIREMENT: _ E cc5 i __ FAefuefron _Tash medahren S /p,/,fs LI

C. PROCEDURE

NO.:

ISSUE DATE:

REY.:

TITLE:

YES NO v4 Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?

Is installed system consistent with TS7 j#4-Are there any problems with the TS (factual or V

editorial)?

Does procedure carry out TS requirement?

A/A Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should uA work as written?'

Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?

N4 REMARKSQ"~rrie SefkinYiand

+Se,A l/m A % /ve "

of tRa "raffe __

c.ase s (Se a-shfe.Q' b n elas lv er-In e areac blW k ne w rvus are akSed ks+),

STATUS OF ITEM CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?

0s7 Teananl speaficaken conec% eq uired. e spec 7ke4. CN/< )

INSPECTOR (5):

h).C 8 ant 5ff r FOLLOWUP ACTION:

INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/

YES

])Q Were problens corrected?

Were any other problems identifi:d?

STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:

INSPECTOR (S):

INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ TS-3 f PAGE NO.:

A -50

. ~ ~

..,. L 2 :TW

i. /.

TECHNICAL. SPECIFICATION DATA CONTINUATION SHEET TS PARA: 73.5/d 3,3.3-2 PAGE NO.: 3/Y 3-E 1W89 to n,e A.,dron s nd corrad/r s&& d:

Vnlu *s do

  • #~

P r* ! lY * "*

  • I* f A.I C

~

Tw.

d' We, + r nas i

A. I. p A./ k th luo, d.

,,, +

pr.ie ly ov er-l< p I

B.I d T eve diere d ra n es; sre usa.,

e /(0W e D/t Va fu e e4 no f 7 >,'r 3e tPo r=e & va tv e Valu <>

J.

,,. i.

p,.re,.ly

.ver k p

b. ) C D. I a (a+h-We'd M fol~ c e).n Alta <ble s.lue carauf I

h I. b lash -

Valu es do n f k te,ly overlaK77,*r T.le er-h.3.. e (a.p, u)--$2 30W2 Tr't,* e,9 Alu <> d e + wks i

l 2

9 s

INSPECTION REPORT 50-456/ 3f-Jf PAGE NO.:

A-5(

l

_ _ :.)

TECHN! CAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DAT A SHEET

. TS PARA:

Y,[. I k, 3 PAGE NO.: 3 d~~

(

i REQUIREMENT:

2 #ad

[ r< [ F b /

[Ever

+

YO fuG r% br u h r'.1 ~ P f P VW'Y h2 ur LI

C. PROCEDURE

NO.: M3

.7D/ ISSUE DATE:

2-/ f ff REV. :

D TITLE:

( d iz- / L1 W-k,, (jes,s f, f -)-

v YES NO Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?

Is installed system consistent with TS?

Are there any problems with the TS (factual or

/

editorial)?

Does procedure carry out TS requirement?

Does the procedure walkdown indictte that it should work as written?

Has lice e completed procedure walkdown? & *C 0 V W/ d d REMARKS I in Dr x h< r

,S c

1-A z

., - n Sp' v

(

l

>,ot/A v v, n vi I"m M '6 at" J sc ", A -o A -

~

//

STATUS OF ITEM h

CLOSED FOR "0 PENS",-WHO MUST D0 WHAT BY WHEN?

07 G).Qtene e un.uln Ys/ procedyve cm Ha f 17/

@ kcMset c.o rretf #ru tedurr l71 @ NM. Athrmke TF' W a,lw n ud k lx k {vde) h TS INSPECTOR (S):

Srrth FOLLOWUP ACTION:

INSPECTION REPORT 50,-458/

YES NO Were problems corrected?

Were any other problems identified?

STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:

'NSPECTOR(S):

g i

'PAGE NO.:

4407 4NSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ IPlf

-,.y..

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: Y.[< d,3, b PAGE NO.:

REQUIREMENT:

' ///S v4 [

Z ~a e e g y -/ e'er e o/ cro//

Sbs Unwn

/9h Nn t No'/'b/

> 4 o er p g-S / $ /e o

h V) toc Me o'$ m /1[,p/~ c l

~

LIC.'PROCEd(RE NO.:,OTMd304 ISSUE DATE:

REY. :'

TITLE:

AJn Afor d ure

\\/P h YES NO Is there any' difference between FSAR/SER and TS?

/[

Is installed system consistent with TS?

Are there any problems with the TS (factual or editorial)?

Does procedure carry out TS requirement?

Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should work as written?

Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?

N REMARKS:

50 ~,0 d

b fe"

, P u, '/pa c;:.f-g

/m 11/c &.

.A%// o /XL a reos 8

i e

STATUS OF ITEM

[M CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST DO WHAT BY WHEN?

0 56-N YL m vsi' de Nr An%.e necessely fiw s'AsmW 4tt u% th l

orau +- A L A rL A consrdenkua INSPECTOR (S):

[e7pe/p//

FOLLOWUP ACTION:

INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/

YES y

Were problems corrected?

Were any other problems identified?

STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSE0 REMAR.';S:

'NSPECTOR(S):

~

INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ 7 f-M PAGE NO.:

M&P 't i-

... c ;.7,

-r TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET i

TS PARA:

4.L.L L C PAGE NO.: 3/y 4-67 TS REQUIREMENT:

Hv/ra e, r We vrs v a l e r. m. 4 J tey e,=b d ed I

LI

C. PROCEDURE

NO.:

25 Y - I se

  • ISSUE DATE:

Y/4 /35 REY.:

'l TITLE:

YES NO

~

Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?

/

Is installed sy' stem consistent with TS?

v/

Are there any problems with the TS (factual or

/

1 j

editorial)?

l Does procedure carry out TS requirement?

/

I Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should work as written?

Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?

/

REMARKS:-

TS reautremed will re e, vire menv ma n -rea, f

f 92 905 0M,

I STATUS OF ITEM (OPED CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?

O-3)

NItX

+tvN deftr mint ne cessif y fu< buned'<M 4nItinne in h w oonf NLhk tAnsrdenkl INSPECTOR (S):

fa ric /l FOLLOWUP ACTION: INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/

YES Were problems corrected?

Were any other problems identified?

STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:

INSPECTOR (S):

i INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ f f-5 f PAGE NO.:

A-APC

~*'ww-s s'm w,~ m.

notwwwe-w-em-.

me-w--n--~mwa--wmw m -r

-ee~~-~.-

- - - *- m w ~rm m v

W@l.C' g

j-

\\

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET L

t TS PARA: $///. 8././

PAGE NO.: J/V 8 -d; TS REQUIREMENT:

V. P /. /. 2. /'. 'I Od y& Avaph oc# 44 de & & & d e M AA & E :.46 J~d enu,w G men, M, n%'n 4%,.7, 9 ;

kun a d d b / # Rse )

.LI

C. PROCEDURE

NO.:

ISSUE DATE:

REV.:

TITLE:

/a a#a eX</ -sa c < l YES NO Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?

Po5si OLE Is installed system consistent with TS?

/

Are there any problems with the TS (factual or

/

i i

editorial)?

I Does procedure carry out TS requirement?

lj Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should g/A i

work as written?

f Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?

],

l REMARKS:(dh 577-7o 1 - 4 # o

/ 6t(

1 N

& Th Pr e e ekes d!N%4 ano n e

+c wed th a+e A o f l

% 'r G Re r-O. a t m J D w 2.

O.

  • sel C er e-ee+ers..

% E+ef as,searr 4e vuda +L a.+

th DD he sw a EccS ac %eJ<s, sw d ud sea we -+% sp Y a') s, k l

STATUS OF ITEM CLOSED

(.W I

i _'

FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?

i ' 35I Qb ew i J MemM Qes n_Sy o F r avudsn Fue neh}'<b TS 3[A G) N8tC wt cerrsch TJ to grfw b6 l

y33

@ Gun e mv& vossf r9rla4aA 9 L<kse f m v& G tvo tru er.bm INSPECTOR (S):

'C.C(6fl,vtk FOLLOWUP ACTION:

INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/

YES

_N_O_

1 Were problems corrected?

Were any other problems identified?

STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARr.5:

t i

INSPECTOR (S):

INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ PS-33 PAGE NO.:

4-17 y l

i

p

- ~: :

' TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION DATA CONTINUATION SHEET TS PARA:

, f, /, /

PAGE NO.:

7/V I-6,

y. r. i. t. 2. f. ?

h1 ce L -tA h

  • TS s ho w.id o.tso e ep %d tk. '

Sam 4 t4J be d. u b,~ ~ $

to v eir4.y %$. % d do msh e'

-tv ha.

v.R y

tb Osv i h4 Dec 2-d 5 cr el^

ar.4 sto f ed o n 0

k VV

- E,.m u e.s;

-A w am..E sta~t Yme T"3 Y elui.e uh

.)

a M

ST F 3 09 - O d ( 2.

'f C r"

  • e "t iM h,

e b 2r o c.e du.cf.

d ef.4.

m oi 4 g/ e At'-

sto n4 af W rS fo,-

Dw I:t dud,j A e.-(2y, v *y q -thd % l1a.LA dk i

-H i

k, kted ayfaans sces ac-+Ja,n w =4 a A +Ae, ho x w qu% %

q

. ri 4 W 4e v % tu -w oc.,

"d y & 4 t p i

si ny+ ruawiaj.

A s + c<.4

,+4 proc,Juee ed4w1!a 4./.A.

N t "'f

  • Gy Mad $

fde.5 fo /s.vy aw ecc.s a s J A,

s., p #

m r em <u.. %

  • O. HeA. Tka t r y by p-u.
4. v g ul y W M9 c.eEf -A r-

+Ae w ^ ^we, a e n e s <-

e eccs a M e~ ++ tyy Q c., <'M c.

rulh <rA TL M ecda#x v4<c4 okA 44

61..n /, he wh j og swa.

Q.%

?ro ca.daa.

in d d ad < % 9 % daaA ep hv+ und'O vo /fa V -

re sc,

suAo s+ank.

m d em

+A.A TS s h o 4 4 W g Etu a

-t e 4.

(F m,..,

4 oroG/ A

'tc

+4.,

vet H c+

tk.a.u m

tscensee. has

( tare e s, t,r ef. D(2 -30 2. }

Dav 3

&M toc

ST,*J repor4 en i

iss w

  • d a.

( O cF R. Pact c

Precedure<

STF -2.o y -u o a M

s r.a 20.5 -.o 6 e /

Y) oppe m O -Cor pes h rms$ M *t~s s&A Gt eh!d) y INSPECTION REPORT 50-43?/ P5'-3 f PAGE NO.:

M%

i f

d

~

l

~ n i-

~

.t.....,...:.,.,

y x, l

UNITED STATES t

l

' I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wassmoTow. o. c. 2osss MEMORANDUM FOR: Dennis Crutchfield, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:

Robert Bosnak, Acting Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

TECHNICAL (SPECIFICATIONS) CHANGE REQUESTS RIVER BEND UNIT 1 As verbally requested by R. Houston, LPM on above subject, we have reviewed

^

the proposed Technical Specification change 3/4.7.10 on Structural Settlement (enclosed). We find the Technical Specification, as annotated is acceptable.

Robert Bosnak, Acting Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

J. Knight

~

G Lear L. Heller H. Polk R. Houston i

J. Chen O

s m

e 4 gg,gr b h.g i a.,

q em w%,

  • 4.g g

m -m '

,y ',, Q '*

,ho.g En/f E"

c h,, e,e ~ y * "

\\

w

\\)l }{\\

A AM hark.

s c$ND

\\

i TECHNICAL CHANGE REQUESTS m

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE /JUSTITICATION:

28)TS 3.7.6.2 - Deleted Railroad Bay.

No sprinkler systems are identified for the railroad there is no safnty related equipment located in this arbay as ea.

29) TS 4.7.6.3.a - Delete.

There are no valves in the flow path of any PGCC subsystem

30) TS 3/4.7.6.

, Table 3.7.6. Added footnote *.

sV,/4 J. 7M Reflects giver Bend design.

31) TS Table 3.7.8 Add items and revise temperatures Additional item have been identified for inclusion a?!d corrections to temperatures from review of Environmental Design Criteria.

p) 32 TS 3/4.7.10 Added Table 3.7.10-2, revised t't.e Technical Specification accordingly and also revised Table 3 710 1 These changes make the Technical Specification consistent with FSAR Section 2.5.

33) TS 3/4.7.11 - Add new Specification.

This 9.1.3 page 9-6. Specification is provided to address SER requirement in Y

C

  • A#
34) TS 3/4.8.1, 3.8.1.1 Action 4.8.1.1.2.f.6.b 2, 3.8.1.2 Action b,

3.8.2.1 Action b, 3.8.2.2 c,

4.8.1.1.2.f.4.b.2, g

(

Action b, and 3.8.3.1 Action b.2.

y,c. v a /'*4 ~'"

- 7,M i t i on o f C v'i p.... r.

a Revisions reflect the powering of standby service water ISWP*P2C and it's auxiliaries from the hPCS diesel pump (Div III).

35) TS 3.8.3.1.b.1 and 3.8.3.2.b.2 - Added panel IENB*PNLO4A Added in conjuncticn of outstanding SEP open item 13, Safe / Alternate Shutdown Design Modification.

l 1.

l Page 6 of 7

- ~ -

n.-,.

y

rs'm 44%*

s PLAN 7 SYSTEMS 3/4.7.10 STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENT LIMITING COND}7]DN FOR 08ERATION 3.7.10 Structural settlem precicted values as sec.r. ent of the following stru:tures shall be within tne in Taele 3. 7.10-1#a.~d c a te la t e.t

4. /# - e ~ r. I
s. trie. s v rs 6 Lil b e.
w. 4.u us a ll o.

6 74 r o., g e s u s,. i., T ole.

37ec.2 a.

Reactor Building b.

Auxiliary Buficing c.

Fuel Building d.

Control Building Diesel Ge'erator Building e.

f.

Star.ddy Cccling Tower, Basin and Pump House APPL]CABILITY:

At all times.

' A_CTION-I..rs o$ I bie > I7.40-i. - J.

3.1

  • O - 1.

With the a645ured st'uctuel setti

.'.e'.' of at v of the accvs required structures) t outs f ee "of i the Commission pur:tne ; :c% :d.;t:1:::

1, ocepara and submit a Special Report to a record of the sett.lement measurtmer.tb6 ant to Specification 6.5.2 within the next 30 days to demonstrate the co'ntineed struct6*al integrity cf the affected strutture(s) and plans to ac91to' the settlenent cf tne af fectes structu*e(s) in the future.

l l

SURVEILLANCE REQU!REw!N1' 1

l 4.7.10 The structural settler.e..t of tr.e abete receire:

demonstratec to De witnin the ;r:t :t:0 ::tt?; :^t.:'.w ;.-:.a. istructurea shall be I 7 :o -1

.A 7 7.o-; :

4 7.a.cr 6

At least once per 92 days, usir,g at least three markars per structure, a.

until there is essential'j ne movement caring tncse $2 days.

b.

At least once per 24 months, usino at leest one R4 ve pe st ittura -

for at Idast 10 yea 5.

I c.

Following any seismic eve.t essa! to or great ** than a, Ocerational Basis Eartncuane (obi}. us).,g it least these markers per structure.

l l

\\

l l

L t

l l

R!vER BEND - UNIT I 3/4 7 34 l

l

. c.ia. w s

~

TA BL E

3. 7.10- 2 A1.L OWA BLE D] FF E RENTI A L SETTLEMENT S OF M AJOR.

STR UCTU R AL TNTE RFA C E POINTS A llo w s.bla Ditt e r s.o tia.I Ma kee No.

S e vs Ia.u eur Bus Iduue 1=+<rfac e a

e t sa )

o.... s

.ar,,

vs. c..,+,a 4 2

r

+ o.3 r + - o. 3 9 4

7 p t 0.4 2. ta - O. 6 i Bf To s: es. De<ssi Ges e ** + =*

9

3. 'i

+ 0. 53 to - !. o r GF n.,ss ve. Fast iO l '1

+o.T6 to -I.31 Fa si es. te-ste-l1 iT

+ 0.16 to - c. 6 I t4 19

+ 0 30 to - 0. 6 0 A4..+,, vs. A.

1,.

y I6 If

+ Cl J 2 + o - C. O !

17 10

+ 0'J3 +o

- 0.83 Awailiaey vs. - Mai.s f+aam

/ T, 20

"!."2, 4 c.44 to - c.63

?

it Fui as. & %st 13 33

+o.rn

+a

- c. 3 2 Fast vs.

E Ta-asi 14 If E Taa~<t vs. Ava il;. y 1st 18

+ o. 41 +, - o.39 4 0. 13 ra - c. 8 3 Cs&s t vs. Awa.l..*y 7

Il

+ 0. 46

+0

- c.66 1

19

+ 0. 7 o +. - o.ro NOTE: Po s a t,va J, Na. +a l s rriweat wassa+es sa rrla~aat of M ae kre A s.o.+L vezpaa., to M a-k a-6.

Aly a.+

v sapu mdo c, A f st s a t +lt. = e a t al Maeka-B w.sk es.rpd +

+a M.e k en A R

Se rs lemnat.s foe rkass twa markses. e.t.L 6 s suur9ed w$ew.ls+re

..n e y al.l$s e r., *s a.t gen /smevi.

E 3/4 7 - 3 5 c o.1

r. h' e

e 9

i l

FINA!. DRRF TABLE 3.7.10-1 TOTAL PREDICTED SETTLEMENTS OF MAJOR STR STRUCTURE SETTLEMENT PREDICTED MARKER NO.

Reactor Evilding SETTLEMENT (IN]

_ _ _ _ =

15 4 4.0 16 4v4 4. o 17 44 4.o Auxiliary Building 18 4-6 '3. P 19 44 36 20 4-93.7 21 M37 Fuel Buf1 ding 11 44 3.7 12 4 4 4.0 E

13 4,4 3 f 14 4,4 3 F Control Sofiding 5

M 3.7 6

M 2.3 7

. 4re. 3.7 8

M 2.7 Diesel Generator Building 1

4+ 39 2

M 3.7 3

M 2.6 4

M 3.9 Standby Cooling Tcwer, Basin

~

and Pump House 30 3-4 2.7 31 44-31 32 44 1.4 BF bul er 2.1 10

'2A

,b,

3 re a.

L.,. I l'l-7.9 23 3.f E % -el 19 32 21 2.9

& Tssaaet 33 1.6 34' O. y t

RIVER SEND - UNIT 1 3/4 7-35 APR 2 61985

._--r'

. _. - - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20151K876&oldid=4156025"