ML20151L066
| ML20151L066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1985 |
| From: | Houston R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Crutchfield D, Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151K803 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-511 NUDOCS 8508010270 | |
| Download: ML20151L066 (49) | |
Text
-
1 kg d[h
/
v oq Co
/pa "c b,
UNITED STATES
!% cg/jyi NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- e4
/
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\;sd/
- $5
- M7/ 7 MEMORANCLM FOR: Dennis M. Crutchfield, Assistant Director for Safety Assessment, DL Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Ofrector for Licensing, DL-FROM:
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, DSI
SUBJECT:
RIVER BEND STATION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE (ONE TIME DEVIATION)
Plant Nzme:
River Bend Station Docket No.:
50-458 s
Licensing Stage:
OL Responsible Branch:
LB #2, DL Project Manager:
S. Stern Due Date:
N/S Review Status:
Complete By a. letter dated July 11, 1985, Gulf States Utilities Company requested a 'one time deviation from Section 3.6.2.7 of the Technical Specification for River Bend Station.
\\
Limiting Condition For Operation (LCO) 3.6.2.7 states that the drywell vent and purge system supply and exhaust valves shall be sealed closed during Operational Conditions 1, 2 and 3.
This LCO was put in place since the 24" drywell vent and purge valves are not quaWied to close under accident conditions in the drywell. The applicant request is to allow the use of the drywell vent and purge system while in Operational' Conditions 2 and 3 for up to a cumulative time not to exceed twenty-four hours provided that 5% of rated thermal power is not exceeded.
The proposed change is needed to eliminate the accumulation of ammonia during periods when personnel entry and access to the drywell is necessary to perform various startup test procedures. The applicant anticipates this effort will be completed in approximately a ten day period from the time of initial heatup to rated temperature and pressure for these tests.
The applicant stated that during the hot functional test at River Bend Station, ammonia levels in excess of 50 ppm were released from the fiberglass insulation in the drywell. The applicant further stated that it is anticipated that during the initial heatup testing, offgassing of anmonia will occur since they have replaced some of the drywell insulation and the analysis indicated that CONTACT:
F. Eltawila, CSB x29488
(,
860Bo;oW A
~
f
i D. Crutchfield M J9 T. Novak additional offgassing is anticipated from the insulation that has undergone this hot functional test.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed limited use of the drywell purge for control of ammonia at low power (up to 5% of rated power), we conclude that this limited use'does not endanger the safety and health of the public and should be approved. The rationale for accepting this Technical Specification deviation is summarized below.
Since the time of operation at low power, when the need might exist to control t
the ammonia concentration is short, and since most of'the ammonia offgassing will occur at power less than 5% of rated power, the fission product inventory will be low.
The lower fission product inventory results in reduced decay heat following i
shutdown. This reduced decay heat significantly increases the time available to the operator for any corrective action in the event it is required, and decreases AC power requirements of the minimum necessary decay heat removal l
system components.
Since the proposed use of the drywell purge system is less than 1% of time, the probability of an accident occurring during this time is low. This low probability event along with the lower fission product inventory make the consequences of transients and accidents during this limited time negligible.
Therefore, the staff finds the limited use of non qualified purge 4
vent isolation valves to be acceptable.
l Enclosed is a marked up copy of-Technical Specification 3.6.2.7.
4 t{d.6.
b
?
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety i
Division of Systems Integration, NRR
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Bernero H. Thompson W. Butler l
R. Benedict l
M. Haughey l
S. Stern i
I i
l l
l
CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS ORYWELL VENT AND PURGE L*MITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3.6 2.7 The dr sealed closed,.* ywell vent and purge system supply and exhaust valves shall be isolation valves which may be closed manual valves, closed remote-manual-valves, and closed automatic' valves which remain closed af ter a loss-of-coolant-accident.
Sealed closed isolation valves should be under administrative control to assure that-they cannot be inadvertently opened. Administrative control includes mechanical devices to seal or lock the valve closeo, or to prevent powerfrom being supplied to the valve operator.
APPLICABILITY:
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, and 3.
ACTION:
With the drywell vent and purge. system supply or exhaust valves open a.
in OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, or 3, and immediately close the drywell vent and purge system valves and be in at least HOT SHUTOOWN within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in COLD SHUTDOWN within the next 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
1
.)
i SURVEILt.ANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.6.'2.7 At least once per 31 days, verify the drywell vent and purge system supplyandexhaustvalvestobesealedclosed[
- . The drywell vea4 and Purce. Sysb may be. Med when vend m k a m naa nia m C#m d rpm for a w,., v i c M.. be co+ k sua.al 29 hours3.356481e-4 days <br />0.00806 hours <br />4.794974e-5 weeks <br />1.10345e-5 months <br /> prov.ded Al -
I-T4EILMAL 90AJEL den act o cec <1 5 percent RA TED THEL 2 MAL Po a> Eg_.
M wel. %pp. Mel Ey ku at JAa,, ve* % afacc 2-Thr.
f ls isde J-tc-ct u c p v.<
c.
c[
g o e
0 a na~a lan e 3-A A. Sc ul cr. CC.
pt-t de (, de Alic. cl;g,1(( uc,. L ct. :'f t'
~c i
n a u c -...... u. x.
y~ s,i y RIVER BEND - UNIT 1 3/4 6-25 s.
ga-wei TELECOPIER TRAN8MITTAL REQUEST 3-f'
.8 6 l
To oRsANIZATION AIEC-77M IE M d 92
% ~s Bue noOREss ATTENTIM
- 4 G-db N*<4/2 x/
[ ~2. ~ #g 94)
TYPE OF TELECOPIER Al/A TELECOPIER TELEPHONE NO.--
49L-7d/7 C#FT)
VERIFICATION TELEPHONE NO.
Vf4-FJ F/
(#rs)
& cd ',
p ca
~
~ c
?
EG l6 - W v 4,, i N
/f 2 0 b 4.w Ict N6,
.; i. s \\.
\\fc l C*kL
~ ti3 '/ O L-
/
FROM M
AXM TELEPHONE No. J G Ef ' M / 6 b COMPANY
- / C M
- Em.
Y TYPE OF TELECOPIER J M TMd M o m e 44"
(
TELEC0 PIER TELEPHONE NO. SFJ-9f f/ (Mh VERIFICATION TELEPHONE NO. S8J" ff88C#'3)
~
l TOTAL PAGE8 [arcluding transmittal thestl M
kk8 4
RATE i
/
RETURN ORIGINAL YE8 Nt:.-
q NAME M
YMC t b M F yV '~'
EXT N#6 f
Ah0171I.$.
100 2.TO 'ON E20s1 *GI dis 3 PO FT G8/80/G0 y-w a-ry,-,-~--g e.-
,,yv-e y
,m--
,e---in-w
--e.r,---w.
s,.p,,.,,e-g..y,
---4--y.
---.---c y,-
--.w.
--m
- - ~ - *. - ~ - -
- < = - - -
~.Y o
x
- .... :a..
EGG-EA-0000 AUDIT OF RIVER BEND STATION TECHNT. CAL SPECIFICATIONS MAY 1985 A
J REVIEW PERFORMED BY D. E. BAXTER 4
- 5. J. BRUSFE I.
1 i
i I
1 I'
I FIN A6824--Power Reactor Technical Specification Evaluation NRC TSRG Lead Engineer - Carl Schulten, NRR-OL This document was prepared primarily for preliminary or internal use.
It has not received full review and* approval.
Since there may be substantive changes, this document should not be considered final, i
l l
i 6TO 4TO *ON 8tOS1 'OI 9193 II:PT G8/80 @
..w
-+=-+m.
7g 7.
~.
c.
~
. - a-~L.
u.
d AUDIT OF RIVER BEND STATION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 1.
INTRODUCTION The River Bend Station is a General Electric Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) plant. It has been selected for an audit to determine if the River Bend Technical Specifie~ations (T/S) are consistent with the River Bend Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) uo to and including Amendment 18 and y
al the River Bend Safety Evaluation Report (SER) as supplemented through a
Supplement 1.
The specific sections of the T/S which were audited are listed in Part 2.
Offferences between these secticas of the T/S and the FSAR and SER were identified in Part 4.
,i 2.
REVIEW CRITERIA The following T/S sections were reviewed for thf s evaluation:
j 9
.,j 1.
Safety Limits
.i 2.
Reactor Protection System (RPS) Setpoints
.j 3.
Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) Setpoints "j
4.
Pressure Boundary Isolation Valves (PIVs) 4 5.
Containment Isolation Valves (CIVs) 6.
Containment Depressurization and Cooling System Limiting
~
Conditions for Operation (LCO's) fi 7.
Combustible Gas Control System LCO's
'l
- i 8.
Technical Specification Requirements contained in the Safety a
Evaluation Report (SER) l 9.
Ice Condenser LCO's (Ice Condenser Plants Only) 1
.i The sections of the T/S listed in Part 4 were compared to the FSAR and SER to determine if the T/S are consistent, conservative or different than the FSAR and SEft, Setpoints and lists of valves and instruments in the T/S were checked against tables in the FSAR and SER.
1 i
1
,i -
sie z.ta m aws1 at sisa II:rt se eo'sa l
m-
-y y
y
,r<w-.
-_,._.y..
r
aa The SER was reviewed to ensure that T/S requirements identified in the 4
SER were addressed in the 7/S.
A description of each difference between.the T/S and the FSAR and SER is included in this report.
3.
SUMMARY
During the performance of this audit, several differences between the T/S, SER and FSAR were noted. Items which were found to be consistent during this review are indicated as consistent in Part 4 o" this report.
Items which were not resolved during this review are listed below and have been assigned a status code which indicates the present status of the
[
T item.
Thes's items are discussa$ in detail in Part 4 of this report.
All other sections were evaluated and found to be consistent or conservative.
Item Title pm Status"Section I Thermal Power Safety Limit 3
1 Section V Containment Isolation Valves 4
1 Section VIII Item 13 Standby Liquid Control System 11 1
i ;
Section VIII Item 17 Digital Radiation Monitoring 13 1
System i
~
Section VIII Item lab I
Thermal Overload Testing 14 1
Section VIII Item 19 Ncnsafety Loads on Emergency 14 1
Sources Sectier, VIII Item 22 Reporting SRV Failures 16 1
Section VIII Item 23 Modificatfor of AOS Logic 17 1
" Status Code 1.
Unresolved, awaiting NRC/Uttitty action.
2.
Resolved pending issuance of T/S revision.
3.
Resolved pending issuance of SER Supplement.
i 4.
Resolved pending issuance of FSAR Amendment.
{
5.
Resolved, NRC accepted as is.
{
f i
LTO LTO*ON 82051 "Q1 9293 TT:ri S8/80/50
,-,y,_.
.,97
,-,p
,p.
,q,.
,,,,.,,,.9,__,-,__%,,,.,e
,wg.
..,7_
ef-,,_
,.g,,,.
.,ve.,,,.,,,,_,,
9
-_.-_y-,.,----._.-
a
.... = = L..
4.
RIVER BEND STATION TECHNICAL SPECNICATION, FSAR and SER CONSISTENCY COMPARISCN Sectinn I.- Safety Limits This section covers the review of the safety limits as defined in Section 2.1 of the Standard Technical Specification. It includes the maximum allowed Thernal Power, RCS pressure, and Reactor Vessel Water Level.
FSAR SER Technical Son:ification Section Section Evaluation 2.1.1 Thermal Power, 4.4, 15.1 44 CONSISTENT. Limit not Low Pressure or Low Flow Table 25.0-2 discussed in referenced FSAR and SER sections.
2.1.2 Thermal Power, 4.4, 15.1 4.4 See NOTE.
High Pressure and High.
Table 15.0-2 Flow J-
~
2.1.3 Reactor Coolant 5.2.2, 15.1 5.2.5 CONSISTENT.
System Pressure 2.1.4 Reactor Vessel 6.3, 7.3, 6.3 CONSISTENT, Water Level 9.1, 15.1 l
NOTE:
FSAR Table 15.0-2 Item 15 specifies an MCPR of 1.07 after reload.
l The T/S does not mention any change from 1.06 after reload. This item is DiFFERENT.
Section II. Reactor Protection System Setpoints This section covers the review of the Reactor Protection System Setpoints to insure the T/S values agree or are conservative to the values assumed in the safety analyses or defined in the SER.
Technical Specification Section Section Evaluation 2.2.1 Reactor Protect-7.2; 15.0 7.2, 15 CONSISTENT. The ton System Instrumen-Table 15.0-1 FSAR and SER tation Setpoints referenced setpoints 3/4.3.6 Page 3/4 3-62 as stated in the T/S.
Table 3.3.6-2 Section III. Encineered Safety Feature Actuation System Setpoints This section covers the review of the ESFAS Setpoints to insure the T/S values agree or are conservative to the values identf fied in the F;AR sections or as defined in the SER as required values.
3 9T0 4T2 *ON 820S1 'GI SES3 OT:ri G2/80/GO
. _ _ _ _ _i.._...,.__
. ZETTZ
- 1
FSAR SER Technical Specification Section Section Evaluation 3/4.3.2 page 3/4 3-19 6.2, 7.3 CONSISTENT.
Table 3.3.2-2 7.3.1, 3/4.3.3 Page 3/4 3-36 15.0, Table 3.3.3-2 Table 15.0-1 3/4.3.4 Page 3/4 3-46
& 51 Tabla 3.3.4.1-2 Table 3.3.4.2-2 3/4.3.5 Page 3/4 3-57 Table 3.3.5-2 Section IV.
pressure Boundary Isolation Valves (P!Vs)
This review determines if all cf the.PIV's identified through the FSAR and SER are included in the T/S.
. Technical Speeffication Section Section Evaluation 3.4.3.2 Page 3/4 4-11 5.2.2 3.9.6 CONSISTENT Table 3.4.3.2-1 5.2.2 Neither the FSAR nor SER identify any PIV's for comparison to the T/S Table.
This Ites is CCNSISTENT.
Section V.
Containment Isolation Valves (CIVs)
This review determines if all cf the CIVs identified through the FSAR and SER are included in the T/S.
.Section Section Evaluation Technical Specification l
3/4.6.4 Page 3/4 6-33 6.2.4 6.2.4 DIFFERENT.
I Table 3.6.4-1 Table 6.2-40 l
All valves listed in FSAR Table 6.2-40 are listed in the T/S Table 3.5.4-1 with the exception of valva 1RHS-V240 which comas thro ~ ugh penetration IKJB-Z20 and is identified on page 5 of 18.
Also in T/S Table 3.'6.4-1 Page 3/4 6-43 there appears to be two t
l typographical errors in that valves:
v/' 1821A0VF)1)A and 1821A0VF)328 D
should be:
DC 'ts!
1821A0VF010A and 1821A0VF0328 respectively, N
t 4
STO 4TO *ON 82esi *GI 9793 0IfPT G8 '80 'S0
- _..--. - A.
Section VI. Centainment Oeoressurization and Cooline System Limitino Conditions for Operation (LCO)
This section reviews the LCOs for the COCS to insure they adequately cover the operation of the CDCS during all required modes of plant operation.
FSAR SER Technical Specification Section Section Evaluation 3/4.6.3 Page 3/4 6-27 6.2.1 6.2.1 CONSISTENT.
LC0 3.6.3.1 6.2.2 6.2.2 SR 4.6.3.1 LCO 3.6.3.2 SR 4.6.3.2 The LCOs and Surveillance Requirements (SR) for these systems are effective during modes 1, 2, and 3 and do require all COCS systems be operable.
This Ites is CONSISTENT.
Section VII. Combustible Gas Control System Limiting Conditions for Cgeration (LCO)
This section reviews the LCOs for the CGCS to insure they adecuately cover the. operation of the CGCS during all modes of plant operations.
FSAR SER Technical Specification Section Section Evaluation 3/4.6.6 Page 3/4 6-64 6.2.5 6.2.5 CONSISTENT.
LCO 3.6.6.1 LCO 3.6.6.2 LCO 3.6.6.3 These LCOs cover all of the required operations of the CGCS for modes 1 and 2.
This Item is CONSISTENT.
t Section VIII. Technical Specifications Requirements Contained in the Safety Evaluation Report This section covers the review of all the items identified in the SER and Supplements as T/S required items and whether they have or have not been adequately addressed in the T/S.
1.
SER Section:
2.5.4.3, Foundation Stability Page 2-36 states:
t 5
PTO LTO 'ON E3031 'c! D203 60:PT 99/90/50
~.. _ _. -.. -.
.s.
-r-~-
,v-,
w
-..-..,-,,,e
, - -, -, -. < - ~ -
I
- .e
.a.
The applicant has committed to monitor structure settlements until there is essentially no movement during a 3-month period or until construction is ccmplete, whichever is later.
biennially for 10 years and, subsequently, followin event equal to or greater than the OBE.
thts general plan but also requires the following.The staff concurs in This monitoring requirement is to be made a Technical a.
l' Specification.
b.
Settlement readings should be made on at least three markers per building to detect differential settlement within i\\}
i buildings.
i be established ~by a registered Professional En c.
\\
any unexpected conditions develop, a corrective action plan l-If should be proposed and submitted to the staff for review and l
approval before it is implemented.
(,
l T/S Section: 3/4.7.10 i
Page 3/4 7-35 Table 3.7.10-I specifies the predicted settlements for the i
various butidings.
structures and the frequency of this monitoring.T/S 3.7.10 a l
l t
,3; This item fs CONSISTENT.
- 1 2.
SER Letton:
3.7.4, Setsste Instrumentation System Page 3-25 l
states:
The applicant has met SRP 3.7.4 except that a setsmic However, in accordance with stated staff requireme ijj scheme will be incorporated in the Technical Specifications.
i I' l
T/S Section: 3/4.3.7 Page.3/4 3.70 T/S 3.3.7.2 and S/R 4.3.7.2 specify the required surveillance scheme.
L; This item is CONSISTENT.
- 3. -
SER Section:
3.9.6 Inservice Testing Program Page 3-42' states:
Pressure isolation valves are required to be Category A or AC, according to ASME Code Paragraph IW-2000, and to meet the Code, except as discussed below. appropriate requirements of IW-342 Limiting condittons for operation (LCO) must be added'to the Technical Specifications 6
g;g 2,te.cN aws1 c! ms3 sa:rt Gseec so
~
~
~
I.
... _ = - -
that will require corrective action (shutdown or system isolation
- Also, surv)eillance requirements that will state when the final asproved leakage limits are not met.
leak rate testin Specific 6tions. g frequency must be provided in the Technical performed at least once each refueling outage, maintenance, before return to service, and for systems rated ~as less than 50% of RCS design pressure each time the valve has moved from its fully closed position, unless justification is given.
The testing interval should average approximately 1 yr.
Leak testing should also be performed after all disturbances to the valves are complete, before power operation following a
,y refueling outage or maintenance.
1 The staff's position on leak rate limiting conditions for operation is that leak rates must be equal to or less than I gpm for each valve to ensure the integrity of the valve, demonstrate i
the adequacy of the redundant pressure isolation function 7
live 'an indication of valve degradation over a finite period.
and T/S Section: 3/4.4.3 Page 3/4 4-8 T/S 3.4.3.2 specifies the required leakage Ifmits.
' l I/R 4.4.3.2.2 spectfies the required testing frequencies, j
This item is CONSISTENT.
I 4.
SER.Section:
]
4.4.4, Thermal Hydraulic Stability Page 4-30 states:
The stabfifty' analysis resulted in a maximum decay ratto of 0 98 for that end-of-1tfe cycle, which is the limiting cycle with i
respect to stability.
J ratto is equal to that of some of the operating plants (forBe l
the staff concludes that the themal hydraulic stab j
i is acceptable for plant operation.
, f, However, to provide additional margin for stability, natural circulation under normal operation will be prohibited by Technical Specifications.
Because no analysis has been presented for MCPR limits or will require by Technical Specifications that single-operatfor not be permitted until supporting analyses are provided and approved.
T/S Section: 3/4.4.1 Page 3/4 4-1 Modes 1 and 2 which also prohibits natural circu i
This item is CONSISTENT.
,i
!l 7
I i
4
,v,.m-v
,>-.,,-----.n.-.,-.,.,.--..,,n,..n.-..ne n
n,m.
,m..,.,. - -, -,--,,,, - - -,,,- _,
.w
.,,,.,-,e._~---.,
.s.
5.
SER Sectien:
4.4.5, Crud Deposition Page 4-30 states:
Crud deposition causes gradual flow reductions in some light water reactor cores.
However, measurement of core flow by jet pump pressure drop and core plate pressure drop will provide adequate indication of such flow reductions, if they should Technical Specifications will require that the core flow occur.
be checked at least once every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to detect flow reduction.
i T/S 3/4.4.1 Page 3/4 4-2 S/R 4.4.1.2 requires total core flow be determined once per-24 hours during Modes 1 and 2.
4 This item is CONSISTENT.
6.
SER 5ection:
4.4.6, Loose Parts Monitoring System Page 4-30 states:
On the basis of an evaluation indicating that the River Bend LPMS is in compliance with AG 1.133, the staff has concluded that the River Bend LPMS is acceptable on the condition that the Technical Specifications include appropriate limiting conditions for operation and surveillante re j
operability of LPMS channels.quirements to demonstrate the T/S Section: 3/4.3.7 i
Page 3/4 3-93 g
T/3 3.3.7.9 specifies the LC0 for operation of this system.
I l S/R 4.3.7.9 specifies the frequencies for system operability l.j verification.
4, This item is CONSISTENT.
7.
SER Section:
5.2.2, 0<erpressure Protection Page 5-4 states:
i A sensitivity study was performed for a 8WR/3 to investigate the I
l effects of a higher initial reactor pressura and recirculation pump trip on the results of the overpressure protection
[
analysis. This analysis showed that increasing the initial operating pressure results in an incr, ease in resultant peak system pressure that is less than half the initial pressure increase. For River Bend, the proposed Technical Specification-l limit on the high reactor pressure scram is 1095 psig.
Therefore, because the vessel dome pressure used in the overpressurization analysis was 1045 psig, the maximum increase in the initial pressure would be limited to 50 psig, and the L
maximum peak system pressure increase during the overpressure design transient would be less than 25 psig. These results indicate that considarable margin is available before the code limit is reached and that GOC 15 will be satisfied even if 8
ITO
/ TO 'CN 8tt:fS1 "GI C193 80:PI G8/SO 50
^
r;y increaseo dome pressure and recirculation' pump trip are considered.
However, because specific River Bend overpressure analyses (as well as other Chapter 15 transient analyses) were performed assuming an initial dome pressure of 1045 psig, it is the staff's position that the Technical Specifications should include an operating pressure limit of 1045 psig for the power operation and start::p modes.
T/S Section: 3/4.4.6 Page 3/4 4-24 T/S 3.4.6.2 specifies reactor steam dome pressure be less than 1045 psig during Modes 1 and 2.
This item is CONSISTENT.
8.
SER Section:
5.4.6, Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System Page 5-19 states:
A high point vent is provided, and the system will be checked et 7
-least once every 31 days to ensure that the pump discharge lines are filled. The RCIC system includes a full flow test line with water return to the condensate storage tank for periodit:
testing. The Technical Specifications util include a flow test at least every 92 days and a system functional test at least every 18 months, with simulated automatic actuation and A
i verification of proper automatic valve position. Both tests verify that the RCIC pump will develop a minimum flow of 600 gps.
T/S Section: 3/4.7.3 Page 3/4 7-8
$/R 4.7.3 specifies the required testing be performed at the i
specified frequencies.
i This item is CONSISTENT, 9.
SER Section:
6.2.3, Secondary containment Design Page 6-23 states:
The applicant has committed to include in the Technical Specifications periodic functional testing of the secondary containment structures and systems, including the SGTS and the fuel building charcoal filtration system drawdown times to establish a negative pressure. The staff will also require that the secondary containment inlaakage rate be periodically checked.
The inclusion of these periodic testing requirements will be verified during the staff review of the Technical Specifications.
T/S Section:
3/4.6.5 Page 3/4 6-49 S/R 4.6.5.1c specifies the system required drawdown limits and times.
i 9
OTO LTO 'ON 8tt:tsi '01 9193 80:ri G8/80 EGO
---4---,
y-.=+
---,---w-wrw y,-
ww,,-we,
,,,,em-
,,.. ~
+-ww
---wyv-u,i-v.w-,-w-um-,-w---
. m
,y
_e.x.
SR 4.6.5.46.1 specifies the SGTS inleakage verification requirement and frequency.
SR 4.6.5.6c.1 specifies the Fuel Building inleakage verification requirements and frequency.
This ites is CONSISTENT.
- 10. SER Section:
6.2.6.3, Containment Leakage Type C Test Page 6-36 states:
For the above systems, the appitcant indicated that a liquid inventory will produce a water seal during the post-accident period, and only liquid leakage from the containment will occur.
The combined leakage from all these valves will satisfy the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 100 regarding the site radiological safety analysis and will be included in the plant Technical i
Specifications. This leakage will therefore be excluded when the combined leakage rate for all penetrations and valves is J'
determined, as provided in Appendix J, Paragraph III.C 3.
it i
T/S Section: 3/4.6.1 Page 3/4 6-3 T/S 3.6.1.3b specifies the leakage limit for all of these systems as required.
This item is CONSISTENT.
1
,i
- 11. SER Sectien:
6.3.3.3, ECCS Functional Design Page 6-41 states:
The applicant has addressed long-term leakage from the first isolation valve outside the suppression pool following a LOCA (LAG-II issue 3-R$&).
In a letter dated December 12, 1983 (from J. E. Booker (GSU).to H. R. Denton (NRC)), the applicant!
~
>j postulated a conservative leak rate of 50 gpm from the valve.
It was indicated that the leakage will drain to one of the reactor i
building sumps, each of which is equipped with a 50-gpm pump to i
transfer water to the radwaste system. Redundant capability for water processing is provided in the radwaste system, and an operability requirement for the system will be included in the l'
plant Technical Specifications. Water processed in the radwaste system is returned to the condensate storage tank f.>om where it can be infected into the vessel and suppressicn pool by the high pressure core spray system, the control rod drive hydraulic system, or the reactor core isolation cooling system pumps. A closed loop is therefore provided to maintain supprassion pool inventory.
T/S Section: 3/4.11.1 Page 3/4 11 T/S 3.11.1.3 specifies the Liquid Radwaste Treatment System be in operation at all times, t
This item is CONSISTENT.
i 10 600 LTO 'cN 810S1 'GI 9193 40 rt G8/80/50
__ n
r
- ~... a...: z..
. -----~
- 12. SER Section:
7.2.2.10, Protection System Surveillance Testing Page 7-12 states:
The staff will verify that the Technical Specifications include appropriate surveillance requirements to requira periodic (online) demonstration of the operability of the RPS and ESF instrument channels logic and actuation devices.
T/S Section:~ 3/4.3.1, Page 3/4 3-1, 3/4 3-10 and 3/4.3.2 and 3/4.3.3 Page 3/4 3-30 respectively S/R 4.3.1.1 requires the RPS periodic demonstratters be performed as specified.
q
-l S/R 4.3.2.1 requires part of the ESF periodic demonstrations be i
performed as spectfied.
-i S/R 4.3.3.1 requires part of the ESF periodic demonstrations be performed as required.
~This ' item is CONSISTENT.
3y 1
- 13. SER Section:
7.4.2.3, Standby Liquid Control System Page 7-34 states:
d-f The SLCS design includes an interlock that prevents the storage i
tank suction valves from opening (thus preventing system level manual initiation) if test valve C41-F031 is open. This valve
- lj (test tank suction valve) is opened to allow testing of the SLCS 1
pumps by circulating water through the pumps and back to the test tank. The interlock is provided to prevent dilution of the sodium pentaborate from water in the test tank.
a status indication (except for valve position indicator lights) is not provided in the control room when valve C41-F031 is open.
Bypassed and inoperable status indication is also addressed in Section 7.5.2.2 of this report.
g The staff will confirm that sufficient SLCS inoperable status ih h
ndication is provided in the control room.
hMF i
i i '~i'j p '~ The River Bend Technical Specifications will include _ provisions _
'd j.j c
fo-Qartodic testing of sne 5LCS interlock with valve C41-F031.
hj j g
?
T/S Section: 3/4.1.5 Page 3/4 1-19 pn',,e
'l T/S 3.1.5 and S/R 4.l..$ give all of the Limiting Conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the SLCS but make m troviniane for periodic testing of the SLCS interlock witt),
.,1 Valve C41-FC31.
t This item is DIFFERENT.
4 1
1 11 j
800 410 'ON 81051 'OI D193 40 &T
&&/SO G3
'ww,,,
..m,.
--~ime e i.e
,ee.,
= = <
r======
g
~
.. a. - w
- 14. SER Section:
7.6.2.2, High Pressure / Low Pressure System Interlocks Page 7-47 st tes:
The low pressire ECCS injection valves for LPCS and LPCI A, G, and C are '.".cerlocked to prevent them from opening in response to i
either manual (control room hand switches) or automatic (ECCS t
initiation logic) actuation signals if reactor pressure-is greater than the permissive setpoint value. Manual actuatien of each injection valys is prevented if reactor high pressure is sensed by a single pressure sensor downstream of the valve (between the injectien valve and series testabit check valve).
1 1
Automatic actuation of each injection valve on a LOCA signal (high drywell pressure and/or low reactor vessel water level) is prevented if reactor high pressure is sensed by four divistanally associated pressure sensort arranged in a one-out-of-two-taken-twice logic configuration. The staff i
concludes that this design complies with RG 1.62 and Section 4.17 of IEEE 279-1971, which state that the amount of equipment 4
(interlocks) common to both manual and automatic initiation i
should be kept at a minimum so that failures within the manual or 4
automatic portions of the system will net prevent initiation of a protective action by both manual and automatic means. All 12 pressure channels providing the reactor low pressure permissive interlock function are safety-related Class 1E equipment and will be required to be periodicelly tested in i
accordance with the River Bend Technical Specifications.
T/S Section: 3/4.3.3 Page 3/4 3-41 i
S/R 4.3.3.1 and Table 4.3.3.1-1 item A.1.d and A.1.e specify the
' I required surveillance of the interlocks.
I This item is CONSISTENT.
~
- 15. SER Section:
7.6.2.3, SRV Low-Low Set Logic Page 7-49 states:
l The River Bend Technical Specification surveillance requirements 1
will include provisions for periodically testing both trains of LLS instrument channels and logic.
T/S Section: 3/4.4.2 Page 3/4 4-7 S/R 4.4.2.2.1 specifies the required periodic testing of the LLS channels.
This. item is CONSISTENT.
- 16. SER Section:
7.6.2.6, Rod Pattern control System Microprocessor Page 7-52 states:
1 The River Bend Technical Specifications will include the appropriate provisions for RPCS periodic testing and o'perability.
4 12 1
400 4TO *CN E1051 'G1 9193 90iPI G8/80 GO t
a
,,n,,,._.,
T/3 Section: 3/4.1.4 Pt.ge 3/4 1-17 S/R 4.1.4.2 provides for periodic testing for system operability as required.
~
This item is CONSISTENT.
17.- SER Section:
7.6.2.7. Digital Radiation Monito-ing System P, age 7-52 states:
The staff will confirm that the River Bend DRMS design is acceptable with reg &rd to the following:
the adequacy of the isolation devices used in the DRMS (see a.
Section 7.2.2.6) b.
the software design methodology (development and qualification) used, and the implementation of the methodology in the final design f
DRMS test capability and Technical Specification c.
surveillance requirements.
T/S Section:
There was no T/S identified that specifically addresses the DRMS.
This item is DIFFERENT.
~
- 18. SER Section:
8.4.2, Containmer.t Electrical Penetrations Page 8-14 states:
Responding to the staff concern on the fault current a.
interrupting capability of the motor contactors, the i
i applicant has stated that the contactors are specified to be in complete conformance to National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) ICS standards, which requires that a j
design test be performed to demonstrate the actifty of the l
contactor to make and break current of 10 times the contactor rated current for 10 operations. The'appiteant has also stated that any currents in excess of 10 times the contactor rated current will be interrupted by the penetration circuit breaker.
The staff finds this arrangement for overcurrent protection of the penetration acceptaele.
The motor contactors in this case are an integral part of the penetration overcurrent protection sy, stem; therefore, they must be tested periccically along with the penetration fuses and circuit breakers.
The staff will ensure that the River Bend Technical Specifications contain a requirement to test the interrupting capability of the motor contactors at a value equal to approx 4ately the locked rotor current of the associated motors.
=.
13 900 410 'ON MOS1 c! 9a93 90:rt G3/90/GO
-a
= - -
b.
In a letter dated March 7, 1994, the applicant provided a penetration overcurrent protection curve that showed the use of a motor contactor and its thermal overloads as an overcurrent device for the protection of the penetration.
Thermal overloads used in the application in motor-operatad valve circuits will not have their thermal overloads j.
bypassed. The thermal overload, however, is set at 4
-approximately 160% of the motor full load current. This is conservative with respect to maintaining operation of the motor and complies with Position C.2 of RG 1.106. The staff will ensure that the River Bend Technical Specifications contain a requirement to perfodically calibrate.the thermal over cads.
~ g
. g.
-kp T/S Section: 3/4.8.4 Page3/48(5 F. MY S/R 4.8.4.2a.3 specifies that once per 18 months that at 9lL Cf a.
least 10% of all motor starters be subjected to locked rotor current as specified.
-This item is CONSISTENT.
b.
T/S Section: No T/S was identified that specifically discusses periodic testing of the thermal overloads as
]
specified.
This item is DlFFERENT.
- 19. SER Section:- 8.4.6 Nonsafety Loads on Emergency Sources.
Page 8-17 states:
The emergency lighting to the control room is the only non-Class IE system that is connected to the Class 1E systen and is not l
tripped on a LOCA signal. This is necessary because a portion of the lighting must be available during a loss-of-offsite power to achieve an orderly' shutdown. The FSAR states that, from the Class 1E bus up to and including the power receptacle, the ei cuit is designed as class 1E with two independent overcurrent protection devices installed in the circuit to ensure protection of the class IE portion of the circuits. These provisions are acceptable if both overcurrent devices are coordinated with the Class 1E bus feeder breaker and are tested periodically.
In a supplement to this report, the staff will confirm that both
~
overcurrent dovices are coordinated with the Class IE bus feeder breaker. The staff also will ensure that provisions are included in the River Band Technical Specifications to test the overcurrent devices on a periodic basis.
T/S Section: No T/$ section was identified t' hat specifically addresses testing the overcurrent devices of these particular 120 V systems.
This item is DJFFERENT.
14 sco Lia oN stesJ. at etes so:rt saeeo so g,.
.-f...-#w-.-eem wv-e'*--
-Pw-
-g**-twy---..eevw:.i--49g-m,.--,e--<wg-------i,g-mm-myqu-e3-w-p-ge-yw.-
ym--
eyr- - -.--,,n-s-w-s-4--wy.,
-,-y,y
.--mw-.-g-..wm.-Weeg g,er--
..ey.-y
e
_.,_:.. hum
- 20. SER Section:
9.1.3, Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Clea.1up System Page 9-6 states:
Under abnormal heat load conditions, the reactor plant component cooling water (RPCCW) system provides cooling water to the fuel pool heat exchangers.
The maximum abnormal heat load is based on a full-core offload 10 days after the last normal refueling cutage and a storage load of 3104 spent fuel bundles. Under these conditions, the cooling system will maintain the temperature of the water at or below 156*F. If the reactor plant component cooling water system is not available, the safety-related standby service water system wcaid be available to cool the heat exchangers through the portion of the RPCCW piping to the standby service water system, which is designed to seismic Category I and Quality Group C standards for this purpose.
The FSAR states that BTP ASB g-2, " Residual Decay Energy for Light Water Reactors for Long Term Cooling," was used to calculate the heat loads.
The applicant was committed to providing a Technical Specification that will prohibit storage of spent fuel in the upper, containment fuel storage pool during normal operation.
T/5 Section: Design Feature 5.6 Page 5-6 D/F 5.6.1.1 specifies that storage of spent fuel in the upper containment fuel storage pool is prohibited during normal operation.
This item is CONSISTENT.
i
- 21. SER Section:
15.2, Increase in Reactor Pressure Page 15-6 states:
{
In analyzing anticipated operational transtants, the
~
a.
applicant has taken credit for plant operating equipment that is not normally reviewed by the staff because it is not considered essential for safety. The staff has discussed the application of this equipment generically with GE. On the basis of these discussions, it is the understanding of l
l, the staff that the most limiting transient that takes credit for this equipment is the feedwater control failure event.
Further, the only plant operating equipment that plays a i
significant role in mitigating this event (excess feedwater) is the turbine bypass system and the level 8 high water level trip (closes turbine stop valves). To insure an acceptable level of performance for River Send, the staff has deter:sined that this equipment must be identified in the plant Technical Specifications with regard to availability, setpoints, and surveillance testing.
l l
t 15 POO LTO 'CN EieS1 '3! 0203 GO:r!
G8/80'GO X T:::::-
^
.~.
M/08/85 1.*:05 EG?.G ID. TSA&B NO.017 OM c
/
b.
Whenever equipment or systems are included in the Technical Specifications it is necessary to define operating limits for the case when the equipment is inoperable.
~
One option is to require a power reduction to less than 25% of rated power if the equipment is inoperable.
The basis for this reouction is that MCpR is unimportant below this level.
The staff requires additional analyses to cover the feedwater controller failure event.
Untti such analyses are provided, the staff will require powar reduction to 255 if the turbine bypass system becomes inoperable.
This limiting condition of operation will be put in the plant Technical Specifications.
T/S Section: 3/4 7.9, 3/4.3.1 Page 3/4 7-33, 3/4 3-1 T/S 3.31 ar.d 3.7.9 provide the required operability a.
statements.
~
' S/R 4.3.1.1 through 4.3.1.3 and 4.7.9 provide the required surveillance requirements.
This item is CONSISTENT.
b.
T/S 3.7.9 specifies that if the TBS is inoperable then the reactor must be in STARTUP within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
This item is CONSERVATIVE.
4 1
- 22. SER Section:
Failures Page 15-20 states:15.9.4 II.K.3.3, Reporting Safety and Relief Valve Because River Bend has not yet operated, no valve fattures have yet been reported.
The applicant will promptly report
~
i safety / relief valve failures via the Licensee Event Report system i
and will summarize failures in the annual report.
Technical Specifications will require these failures to beThe plant reported within 30 days.
T/S Section: Administrative Controls 6.9 Page 6-16 A/C 6.9.1.5 specifies summarizing all challenges to SRV's but does not specify summarizing SRV failures as required.
This item is QIFFERENT.
~
A/C 6.9.1.6 specifies monthly reporting of challenges to SRV's but does not specify SRV failure reporting as required.
This item is DJFFERENT.
i t
16
. _, =, ~
s J
.4w.,
esecs/85 14:04 EG&G ID. ISA8,9
~ NO.017 002 f
By letter dated December 12, 1983, the applicant adopted the
~
results of the BWR owners group report on TMI Action Plan 1
Item II.K.3.18 " Modification of Automatic Depressurization Systems (ADS) Logic--Feasibility for Increased Diversity for Some Events."
The applicant has committed to modify the AOS logic to bypass the high drywell oressure trip after a sustained low water level signal and to add a manual swftch that may be used to inhibit ADS actuation if necessary. This is consistent with option 4 of the owners group study and is acceptable to the staff with the following conditions: (1) installation must be completed prior to initial criticality; (2) Technical Specifications must be provided for the bypass timer and manual inhibit switch; (3) the use of the inhibit switch must be andressed in the plant energency procedures; and (4) a plant-specific analysis must be provided to justify the bypass timer setting.
T/S Section: 3/4.3.3 No T/S or S/R was identified that specifically discusses the bypass timer or manual inhibit switch.
This item is O!FFERENT.
I
- 24. SSER 1 Section:
6.2.3, Secondary Containment Functional Design
^
Page 6-1 states:
'i In the SER, the staff recuired that befors plant operation begins and at each refueling outage, the shield building, auxiliary building, and the fuel building must be tested to verify that the l
inleakage will not exceed 2000 cfm, 5000 cfm. and 5000 cfm at a pressure of -0.50 inch wg, -0.25 inch wg, and -0.25 inch wg, respectively. The, staff will require that these periodic testing requirements be included in the Technical Specifications, q
T/S Sectien: 3/4.6.5 Page 3/4 6-50
$/R 4.6.5.1c.1,2,3 and 4 specify that once per 18 months the above s,tated conditions be met.
This item is CONSISTENT.
~
W
'0 I
i t
17 l
t
a j'
m j#" "*%
UNITro sTATas y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV D
af
$11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE SulTE 1000 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 79011 MAY 131985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Dennis M. Crutchfield, Assistant Director for Safety Assessment, Division of Licensing Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, Division of Licensing FROM:
Richard P. Denise, Director, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects
SUBJECT:
FINAL DRAFT OF THE RIVER BEND UNIT 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS l
This provides infonnation on the Region-IV review of the final draft technical specifications for River Bend.
It is forwarded as requested by your letter of April 19 1985.
A Region IV team inspection was conducted from April 29 through May 3,1985.
The results of this inspection were that some 25 items were ioentified, which
'l appear to be under NRR ccgnizance. These are documented in the attached inspection report forms. Except for the attached, no additional items were identified which we feel require action on your part. There were, however.
i over 300 items related to the licensee's implementing procedures. These will be documented in Inspection Report 50-458/85-35.
Although our inspection of the draft technical specifications was primarily directed toward the licensees readiness to implement them, we did review the s
technical specifications for obvious discrepancies between them, the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0989, including Supplement 1), and the Final Safety i!' ;
Analysis Report-(through Amendment 17). There were no problems found in this area, which are not already noted in the attached report forms.
l Td N %
M Richard P. Denise, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects Attachments:
As stated dnmn/ n q3j V.? V (LA.9 V. f )({)
~
b'
~
e awe p--
ae.
gr ga
T'
-_._2.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: Y,d.[.2 g/
PAGE NO.: 3/N 4-td' TS REQUIREMENT:
- md os O/d obu> Armt es/m> # It
& d JA b M N Y /eseh b '
O A1/
iu a
a LI
C. PROCEDURE
NO.:
ISSUE DATE:
' REY.:
TITLE:
YES M
Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
v 4
Is installed system consistent with TS?
v Are there any problems with the TS (factual or u
editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should work as written?
Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
l REMARKS:
d ) l i & &, r, w byts / k g h y m d, w )t} }
& dl eDrV A r Te.r m $ ? & m m [ buty>r e d_i-s l
l or awffe du
?! Um-A.s&D Av-ch sob odw J /dA o sA sLn A j
L/ab ku)2tl. " L U9.s.43. 4.aik L ' &?A g
3
.]
STATUS OF ITEM M [ 0ddi '#"
- TY' l
FOR "0 PENS"' WHO MUST DO WHAT BY WHEN?
J A> A n >
7" $ wb e:2.
W WM_
~~
d
~
U INSPECTOR (S):
FOLLOWUP ACTION: INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES N
Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
4 STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPICTION REPORT 50-458/
PAGE NO.:
~
~
.2 1-.
.. U [
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: S/9.8./,/
PAGE NO.: J/7 8 7'f TS REQUIREMENT:
4.f,/./.S./,9.
G/, afb ale. eve d / M /u %fo, 4
M 6e b~JJJ oPEAAate : af d ence n E m th, L.h s h i'd n' A'
(Au daeb/ +s u )
LIC.PROCEDdRENO.:
ISSUE 5DAfE:
REY.:
TITLE:
/.w adaded.coe.c )
YES NO Is there any differer.ce 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?
g Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should work as written?
4 Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
N/f REMARKS: 6) 7~.c. REdusectrGN7 C7xres $3d ew Fod nny tcAo /~e a 06 s Ad6 insreAo or THE conster" (ANJAAc4L Y } 3/*10 i<'cJ
. (2 ) hmba s 7 P - 3 0 9 - 0 6 0.2 mi wNeMxf
/ss/.A,,_,'
s An DW
.*1 & eJ~eafor. (b ! M 9 en a m uo M 7~r r-n o
Y1) PreitwAm E hv / o d Di u P
>r d a d utf- '
Y h
CLOSED STATUS CF ITEM l
FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
DYrm wd d
drottk a.e oA<A add f hAf "T~ 6W' (d Nu onset bred-techm%I skafNew fl Lrcostc^ks+ c mect proce)are.
u:
INSPECTORd): C.C. Sr r(v c lt FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES h0 Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ PS-U PAGE NO :
s
~ -
...w TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: J/V. J. /, /
PAGE NO.: 3/4/ f. 7 TS REQUIREMENT:
V E. /' /. 2. f. /2-Oel & M & DGa Al/ de-d r'w,w2.-/
"LE.,Addn k-onbets 41 led no n 9 mee.
i fax aDu' L.Jl LI
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: "#7##~fff[ ISSUE DATE:
REV.:
d ddd /b / ECC f ce4 drX 7 %4 TITLE:
Sn/ I [ osu 2)
,y YES g
Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
/
Is installed system consistent with TS?
/
Are there any problems with the TS (factual or Po s.s,'3/
7 editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
s/'A.
Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should
. q/A work as written?
Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
a//,4 i
REMARKS: (t ) N p ec cr/or-u he w/f v ed
/wa h j,
- 4. ' 6e as&J/rw s
$_! o 9.
h.) TC D
.-d m
ai u
1 STATUS OF ITEM hPED CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
i 0 Lc w p < eniJuuta-c1 u_1 G Nu d41enk e ce}ehen / $ o%
i 1
. stiz c-AAfev w f
INSPECTOR (S):
' cc,/4Jl...A FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
~
YES g
Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ ff-Jf PAGE NO.:
~
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION DATA CONTINUATION SHEET TS PARA: J/% 8. /. /
PAGE NO.: S/4'f-7,F-8 y S. /. /. 2. { /3 t C+MC-M*7~ :
~
- 13. Verifying that the following diesel generator lockout features prevent diesel generator starting only when required:
a)
For Diesel Generators IA and IB:
1 1)
Diesel control panel loss or control power.
i 2)
Starting air pressure below 50 psi.
3)
Stop solenoid energized.
4)
Diesel in the maintenance mode (includes barring device engaged).
5)
Overspeed trip device actuated.
6)
Generator backup protection lockout relay trippedc-l b)
For Diesel Generator IC:
1 1)
Diesel generator lockout relays not reset.
2)
Diesel engine mode switch not in "AUT0" position.
3)
Diesel generator cutput breaker closed before start of h
diesel.
F 4)
- Diesel generator output breaker in racked-out position.
e 5)
- Diesel generator regulator mode switch not in "AUT0"
/
lf.AV position.
6)
Insufficient starting air pressure.
\\
7)
Loss of de power to diesel generator controls.
i l
.p.
JAew<. +) ud 5) de var ehde s calb3 bloc k dM am <fn-feew e m sc-dadw'a
- howeve, Mr
+u.LodsL{udop%'ekej1sudd.pg s
Y'
[A. (cb e 4 )
ye s n d s c,a.i o k b h t d s
-+4 c.
& to r el-i aa u
c.oniv.(
ree m..
TG.
f<s e.+
wg not J.c e k
-G r c4 m
%e.
lockord s Fo,- e m pte
, Dsv 3 d.ud, %
- 5) i 4),cm A 5) cffn&dly c/W2 pd locko J<.
n era.
- a. v&
C+ art, em +ko v i, n Ou eSE le dM ae.lcl e"<p.
/
./
4
.(J)
W T~C va ps.c cevscmw wa.M SM A %
$ cc 3 a.sX ta,./th< qat/
b s c h b A 7 " 9 %
O-nf u
&J&f h
.t u y. M.c & Ad e<-e<, w.M fla heta Js !
INSPECTION REPORT 50-6F/ Fi-U PAGE NO.:
~ ~ ' ' '
- ~
"L:-~L
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: J/f. 85 PAGE NO.: N 8-/7 7% F-21 2
~
e TS REQUIREMENT:
2 _..
^
ISSUE DATE:
REV.:
C. PROCEDURE
NO.:
TITLE:
F YES g
Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
- /+
Is installed system consistent with TS?
F4 Are there any problems with the TS (factual or K
editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
F/4 Oces the procedure walkdown indicate that it should g
work as written?
Has licensee c,ompleted procedure walkdown?
d REMARKS:
A g/,ser em 's re, 44, w,,./ 4,,
tm & im., eh, up5__W I,% <
A,,--
eas/,
L,u e4~.
ups n.a $,,, des; - s L> a a en L,d w ?tL ~ 5 de< n i /,l L a -
N411 A 4,
a i5.,
>*ee!cJ.
2.
tw say 2 -2 /. 4 +4e Na L~md r~ - a el.,.,, g, i
~
e.I v'
- h. /
/ess k4 s es e et 7 se skauId r% L a eit4. -
STATUSbFITEM CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
(O /AL m.att resei<e
~
G) NM m es F u n ee.f s fe ita.ea h INSPECTOR (S):
K. k. W Grd FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES M
Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems sidentified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ 75-15 PAGE NO.:
g I
j I
\\
.. -...... -.a.
\\
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SNEET TS PARA: J/V.P 4. /
PAGE NO.: 3/4 3-24 g &
TS REQUIREMENT:
v t. V /. 4 ~./ 4l'Ckcke/ N sdman A h N, cit ps ehm4fsus toa Aveke oav Lvv**d ynoha.% h J a, sL ~ o,is. Y Ir 3.1,y,6 - I
(
GAa4 &c dt w =sbel*J cveI 6(f.'
i LI
C. PROCEDURE
NO.:
ISSUE DATE:
^
REV.:
TITLE:
/u t o.s+f iv eh%
shof
~
YES NO Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
M-Is installed system consistent with TS?
-y-Are there any problems with the TS (factual or
/
editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
y Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should
, a/A work as written?
l Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
,/
RENARKS:
y Procentaa re vlea
- - - 4c s et cr> < /s m r.c n i
>.cVeemplefeef.
/[1 -r.s c. -+a i ar
+v..poarne6e'u# % v-4 nu & i E < of e an a v-., k s,.
ow s
- d. t. a. 2 s4 o fd &
y r. 4. /
e.,. w 2-2y.
W l
STATUS OF ITEM CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST DO WHAT BY WHEN?
he m fe:<.
c% "JL " (1.)
Su $1&
~~
pr e es duar (d (3 )
% orou% h) p it c.
+e to re ec.h TS.'
IMSPECTOR(S):
C. c. H <rl.uc/c FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES
,N_0 Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
\\
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED i
REMARXS:
(
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ Pf-tf PAGE NO.:
i l
l t
TECHNI, CAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: 3/4. 2. Y. 2 PAGE No.: 3lY f-73 TS REQUIREMENT:
4'.J'. V. 7.4 50 f. CA hh v4Mp3 54 #C f LI
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: cr/'-Rhdeo ISSUE DATE:
v-2 v- # 5
REY.:
/
TITLE:
EFA CKe~u:f M'4dA YES Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
- //f Is installed system consistent with TS?
,v M
/
p
,,3, A Are there any problems with the TS (factual or editorial)?
Does procedure carry ot.t TS requirement?
s/,f Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should g
work as written?
Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
g/4 R
RKS D ) TS f *9r &
4'. E. W. 2 - S. / d. 2.
N egg ca
( Bua a va AW)
~
(fre a da' s
& neru_b2')
wa STATUS OF ITEM CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO Ml'ST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
-A NKC-ed cM TS INSPECTOR (S):
C.C. I+' d *(. h.
FOLLOWUP Ar. TION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES g
Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
t i
INSPECTOR (S):
(
INSFECTION REPORT 50-458/ If-7f PAGE NO.:
l l
. ~ _ _..
ra
?
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SNEET TS PARA:
'(. T 2 C.J. A PAGE NO.:
3/Y 7-V Tf,REQUIRENENT:
Verify minimum S.4 h cson4-yah claring F u I ur.lonsb y LI
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: _ST/-ow-soof ISSUE DATE:
7/Av/1Y REY.:
o TITLE:
Do7(v Onsehb 4+r
/
/
YES g
Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS7 Nur vems::rt-o Is installed system consistent with TS7 MuT Ve%mba Are there any proble=s with the TS (factual or X
editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
X Does the procedure walkdnwn indicate that it should NOT verterc <)
work as written?
H[ licensee completed procedure walkdown?
X IEMARKS: (p TS llvws cova+ rzchr less A.i o ? c#r, Thrs is Ce d w v 4: #A/t b'ere der [ormasw e) D rqpffz e i
(D 't.h W rtY xLet
!nt'kt. pro e e[ ort i
STATUS OF ITEM h
CLOSED FOR "0 PENS', kHO MUST D0 WHAT BY WHEN7
~~
Q NILR. attasY Corne.f TS Q:) hyplitaa4 n ot]~ n'n tor m ft lu ftri INSPECTOR (S):
04 Ie A. fo.ucer TOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/_
_YES NO Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ 7 5 - 3J PAGE NO.:
i k
I
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: 4.10. }
PAGE NO.: 3/4 /O-I TS REQUIREMENT: THE THERMAL PoulfR AHO REACTOR C00LAvr ilmPEMTORE SHALL 86 4ERIFtEn Tn BE Wr1MlH THE LIM tTS A7 LEAST c>kt P6R HOUR DURING LOW 90w6R PHYSIG6 TESTS.
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: 57P 050 0704 ISSUE DATE:
l-ll-F5 REY.:
o 4'
TITLE:
TMrrif L 4wc/ Ano PcAcTag cactruv s ySum Tcmpt M 70gr Vr giri g 7,an 00FsG tou Fo4LF F n sscs - it.s7 ygg yn LIs there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
M 2,Is installed system consistent with TS?
NA N4 3,Are there any problems with the TS (factual or
,/
editorial)?
4.Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
/
F.Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should
/
work as written?
6.Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
/
REMARKS: 0 SURVilLLhuliREQlR Pldf HTS S HO VLD INCLVO(
Rioulfl et H 7 f of' "A
Sitko LI C ENSE D
^H MiW 0Q 07alR Tf CHNICPhY GtMuftto MtwetR' of Tuf unr7 "t C9 MICC L staff IS PR6SFH1 ano VEPlftES CW PL' Antt
- 1a TH f_
CHYSICS itS7."
l (9. STEP 7.4 - se soser w u ms iter ms74 M fNT NVM6f6 (3]-R600 i
STEP 1.5 - ulEC To OErsat w To osiw THEPrML POWER STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
- 3. N R C.
RE C ONCn.6 6Y F0f L LOAD
^ ~ '
5 Luce rusEF f 6 c on o LL eY f uc L Lopo INSPECTOR (5):
D uJi/;H f D. CH Ary166RLf1lN FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES
_N_0 0
Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
l STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPOR1 50-458/ 7f-33 PAGE NO.:
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: A s lO. 2.
PAGE NO.: 3/4 10-2 TS REQUIREMENT:
WHEM THE GEtDUEncE.
coNSTRP hts sr1100S60 CM CcMTROL RCD (.ROUPS BY TH 6 ROC S NRE BY9hS9En. \\lEMFY.* [St6 QH DHUhTICtl st16ET)
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: 57P-500- 0705 ISSUE DATE:
1 02-75 REV.:
0
/n, TITLE:
Roo stoutNrc w'rt tct r
tuya Rpc5 is BYFAssEo rog rg s 7,NC YES NO I Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
NA rd 2 Is installed system consistent with TS?
NI4 NA
- 3. Are there any problems with the TS (factual or
/
editorial)?
- 4. Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
/
6, Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should v/
work as written?
, r:s
- 6. Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
/
REMARKS:@)pciohL Roo Possireas 4RL REcoROGO Ano VERIFitn 20r Pf 90460 Positron LtMITS ARE No1 IMDicATEC
&) 4,lo.2. 0.
Moit enEtw T of (CN TQ0L RODS FR0rn 100'k Ago DSHStiv letSTE R O of 15 *A STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED I
FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
O NM RECON C l L6 BY FUf L lefD
~~
(4) L I C f NS f 6 AG C OMIL E EY fufL LOAD l
INSPECTOR (S):
Dv)l /;HT 0.
CHA M8ER LAIN FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-453/
YES y
Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED l
REMARKS:
l INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ 7 5-35 PAGE NO.:
f 1
w.~..
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: 4.10.3 PAGE NO.:
3 /4 10-3 TS REQUIREMENT:
WITPld 30 MMUTES PRl0R 70 AHO AT LfAST ONc6
~
PER 12 uotlR S DuRlnG THF PER FORmpNU OF A RHilTDotuN N1 A RGIM DCMONSTRAYI0tJ t/ERIFY THnT * (SEE CodTINuhTIord SHEET)
I LI
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: STF 050 3601 ISSUE DATE:
2- !F-Ff REY.:
0 q
_j TITLE:
SH0700WN rdPRGIN 06 rd O N SI847f 0PJ YES N
- 1. Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
NA N4
- 2. Is installed system consistent with TS?
NA NA
- 3. Are there any problems with the TS (factual or
/
editorial)?
4,Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
h 5.Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should
/
work as written?
6.Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
v' thvoMES REMARKS: h OATASHf 67 2 of 5 79.o50- 2001 Rf Vit M0 WicN F Vf M ( 4 tr. n Al TE C HNIC A L Ff6Cir t(C rina 4.10.3 - EDnTORIAL C6M MEHTS DC T4 SPEET 2 SECTION (IXc) sHwLo STFil ' Ta Csc Cpittpu cmsc. Srsitm m o etc Pip Sou\\ncarnors 3.l.A.2 'D)fCTosd b) S"mo STnt 'n 56tenc ucinsLc enorsp cR
]
oraa rwwuar ow.,rtto w.imere v r;s omr recuarat surr i
STATUS 0F ITEM OPEN CLOSED
~
FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
~~
- 3. klRC A6 (onC lL6 R1 f f6 L_
Lof4D 4.
LIC6HSF6 ff(OHCILS PY FUL L L0f D
- 5. ll CE NSC-L PC concILE 8Y FU6 L l-nAD INSPECTOR (S):
DV)ICH T D.
C H AM6CFt.f lis/
FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES NO Were problems corrected?
j Were any othcr problems identified?
I STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARY,S:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ 75-f f PAGE NO.:
1 e-e m v.
~
e em +.,
e--
.ene w
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: 3/Y % f. A /
PAGE NO.:
3 /v J -l /
TS REQUIREMENT:
(Jiaa af/ cd ecll, c.karnel TVns&uf farb, a C)D a ntl Cal' bra Sh out 49H3 LI
C. PROCEDURE
NO.:
409-Wes ISSUE DATE:
1/i/1.r REY.:
o TITLE:
YES 3
Is there any difference between FSAP/SER and TS?
4 69 Is installed system consistent with TS?
[ 7g Are there any problems with the TS (factual or editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
l Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should gg j
work as written?
j Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
t/
i REMARKS:
0 %f nof t (d in Tah(C 4,3,1./ */ For entneal fee 7ffa+ldo einauel Psne h I +est is cea fustee a>d eren fur M usrdn %
cbb-
- 1) The eks nl fun +io..I 4es+ Fve da< ea i avuna+pn o F o,; < i< sl o h l
line Tsc(dih can b e f trfyns,e) wi% ee 4-n.efvs i foi5a4%. No r
^i cro adem Lei's4-h Mrform unc $td.
'h I
STATUS OF ITEM CLQSED i
FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHE_N?
N O NAC m as4 deter,.ia reserien,e f far Pun +;n %4+s fur-
~'
1 m,sval tn+rdion a,so cJurk nok e.
tts vowoud
>-) 'brtens ee
-}
'nes4 4 ender rruelms ferir, she-The '? sol-W +uk 4 ca.M i
INSPECTOR (S):
b/ sit. Acae efl-FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES g
l Were probleras corrected?
Were any other problens identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
i INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ fi-7J PAGE N0.:
j i
1 T -
~ ~.
- ::L.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA:.3/I,43 M PAGE NO.: 3/y ? -14 TS REQUIREMENT:
Cbann el check, C.han el Fu,,chul +e3 E an J o f e rl%s chunnef cali bn n
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: yr *584Mt ISSUE DATE:
>/a/ty REY.:
0 TITLE: kSGS -Auckv9eml %4er Lioul ~l** L*, kik % le, k, Lui l,che ef Mbek, C6 4-NoPl 4j 6k-#t,Pl 43 4>t-N67; A)
YES
'g Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
!s installed system consistent with TS?
F//f 1
Are there any problems with the TS (factual or v/
editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
Does the procedure walkdown _ indicate that it should
- fA work as written?
Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
REMARKS:
d TS Mit I.3. 3 d,I'I IV#tA*W Ie4. Sped [It i **ff.5 = 4et 5
f 1
bO=ys.$ TosketY M fruchet.ss wriNtos, bes neh stedh ) l & c&,d fracticani itA GN retWIed b v %eekresi seesflit<4rN. Yrose)N Mb w a lk el L,..
STATUS OF ITEM
[0M CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
TS ut'ns.$l%
Ydecirt). Uceasy ad& n%9Itoed etr%IkIfv
~'
l rc<uire one.4s aF 4e <1.,% / 5,s ed/r 't e fn=ss 1
INSPECTOR (S):
(d.d. deantY FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES M
Were problems corrected?
Were any other probler.s identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ 85-M _
PAGE NO.:
ne -
~
.c NAY 131985 MEMONMvJM FOR: Dennis M. Crutchfield, Assistant Director for Safety Assessment, Division of Licensing Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, Division of Licensing FROM:
Richard P. Denise, Director, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects
SUBJECT:
FINAL DRAF1,'c THE RIVER BEND UNIT,1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS This provides.information on the Region IV revie,t of the final draft technical specifications for River Bend.
It is forwarded as requested by your letter of April 19, 1985.
A Region IV team inspection was conducted from April 29 through May 3, 1985.
The results of this inspection were that some 25 items were identified, which appear to be under NRR cognizance. These are documented in the attached inspection report forms. Except for the attached, no additional items were identified which we feel require action on your part. There were, however, over 300 items related to the licensee's implement'ing procedures. These will 3
be' documented in Inspection Report 50-458/85-35.
Although our inspection of the draft technical specifications was primarily i
directed toward the licensees readiness to implement-them, we did review the technical specifications for obvious discrepancies between them, the Safety j
Evaluation Report (NUREG-0989, including Supplement 1), and the Final Safety Analysis Report (through Amendment 17). There were no problems found in this area, which are not already noted in the attached report forms.
i cen:! 0-red By
')
g E. H. Jchn:cn 1
Richard P. Denise, Director Division of Reactor Safety and i
Projects
-. s Attachments:
1 As stated bec:
R. D. Martin R. P. Denise E. H. Johnson J. P. Jaudon W. Seidle CO9/9[ n ] ] S D. Chamberlain
'"/vvv-
/
R. Farrell RPB1 AI File
/3 1
RIV Fil k
RIV:R i
RPB1 DRSP JPJaudon ik EHJohnson RPDenise
$/ g85 f/p/85
/A/85 e
7 77 7
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: 4.10.4.1 PAGE NO.: S/4 10-4 TS REQUIREMENT: 746 TmM DUQirJC, WHlc4 796 AROV6 SP6&l60 R6/)t4RfrtifN7 HAS 9 TEN SGWFMDEO MALL PG
\\!6RIPED 70 PF LGS 9 THArt 24 H00R5 AT L6A5T (Nc6 P6R HO UR 00RiNC.
PHY<;lc5 76575 [JE6 CosmVATioM 6HET)
LIC. PROCEDtlRE NO.: STP- 053- 0701 ISSUE DATE:
1-o7-86 REY.:
C
_y TITLE:
R E n cv.G PE cWC O LATuoN LOOPS OfffAis00 OVAtMG TESTtH6 YES g
3.Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
NA NA 2.Is installed system consistent with TS?
NA N4 3.Are there any problems with the TS (factual or
/
editorial)?
- 4. Doea procedure carry out TS requirement?
/
5.Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should NA NA work as written?
6.Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
/
REMARKS: 6 5 J JcitLA~ct c6cv H rmuis swevto wctuct prompteru7 For " A
<ltwo L1ctuscc ppf pA tor OR 0786 R TLcHurCALLY QUALIFot0 MEM6Le ff THC t)+ 7 T(CHu r( AL STFM 5 PR E 56MT Ant JL A sitLS GenfuGuc(
wau rHE Nysics fs7 CR S TA RTVP TLs1 PRoctDVRE (4) STP S uf:
9.4.73 AND 7. 6 us-r cttis ano wayto ntqgg pgsut7 rn STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
(3) NAC. Lemale 41 fys{ len )
u LZtes se r m'ilt hy Guel for)
INSPECTOR (S):
P.v7)lf- /). C/teser/4ek FOLLOWUP ACTI0h:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES 3
Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REPARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ 7T -U PAGE NO.:
l
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA:
4.10.F PAGE NO.: 3/4 10-6 TS REQUIREMENT:
THE R64CTOR V655EL 694LL P6 t/6 RIFIED 70 86 UN PRE 550RGED AND T46 746RMA L POWER AND REACTOR coculNT T6rnPERATURE SHALL 66 UERIFIGO (SEE con TINU4 Tron SHEET)
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: STP-507-3702 ISSUE DATE:
2 f 5 REY.:
o
,;p TITLE:
TYEFmAL POWER REALTOR 660LANT TEMPGPC70Rf Ano PEperoR MsSCL PNSSVRL VlRiflCF710N DURING Tff'HING START uP5 YES N0
- l. Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
NA NA 2 Is installed system consistent with TS?
Nh 44 3.Are there any problems with the TS (factual or
/
editorial)?
4.Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
/
5.Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should t/
work as written?
6.Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
/
REMARKS: QSJFJEILLhuct QEowsmEnts saoulo incl 006 GEcuo96 ment FOR "A SECoMO LicGNSEO oCE R A TOR M OMR T6c HNrc ALL4 qun Lf FIED MEHi&ER oC T,4E VH!T TEcu MICA L SToff IS PRESGHT AND \\lltif*ES comPLrenCE vit Tr4 7Cesu sqC crARTOP PMrFnURES."
@) STEP 1.5 - HEGO TO DEflHE Hul To OBTAIN THEBrt1AL Ph)ER STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED l
FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
f NRC 9GCNc1LL B Y' FVLL LOAD
~~
G) LICENSEE PE CONCILE PY full l 0AD INSPECTOR (S):
D V)lfdt T D. CHAlf*EF f!.F IN.
FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES NO Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems ide.tified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
l INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ Ti-U PAGE h0.:
j TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA:
,4'. 2. /
PAGE NO.: 3N t-I 6ERifY A PLFIG 2 S A#f k/ f TM/A/ t//M /rs AT f
TS REQUIREMENT:
Tl/E $ pet *.I C" Ib TIM C$.
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: STP- 050-Joo/ ISSUE DATE: 3A.</ef REY.:
o TITLE: lhalEt
>!sitt R0it oW' unnrs L/terrtem-r o A/
YES y
Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
A/or 6/Ettr/EJ
.Is installed syste.m consistent with TS?
A/or vAxs Ffsa Are there any problems with the TS (factual or 1
editorial)?
netcAR To Does proceduregarry out TS requirement?
X Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should 4/o 7 ve etF/Eb work as written?
l Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
X REKARKS: DM PAC,E 3/4 3 - 2..
Th'E FtJE*L.
Alum 8 t~K SHovt b
'R E
~P G s l E 0 ~7 I 'N07 P8Si609Y. THE A PPLtc A AIT MS PK00 thEh
-s' mn PLH62 cvRVES Pg t o p_
-t-o kntEA.Th /WR ~7'fh!E~
VS AR LJ Alc H l h E AJTl f'IE.5 3 F0EL 'NPES
^
STATUS OF ITEM CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST DO WHAT BY WHEN?
NRR h1vs7 ^cDRREcT THE TYPO GR A-p 4r c-A L ER R A A/25 '
REVlau/ TMC MMPLHG2 C0Kt/ES. THE LicEr/sEE' Md.sY AEQUEST
~*Rt ol2. ~20 0 L.
AAI A m trl.hmE r/T To THE VSAR. ALL EffcA'7 S 'b JE t
INSPECTOR (S): 34L5-4 "dowrAS FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES g
Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
9 INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ PS-35 PAGE NO.:
l
.-..r..
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA:
g.2./
PAGE NO.: 3N
~4 - I TS REQUIREMENT:
VERIGY APl.dGQS MC WITH/W um fr1 Ar TIJE SPEC.t s~ t6th
'r/M ts.
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: srP- 05c-Joo/ ISSUE DATE: 3/e.,/Ff REY.:
o TITLE: ' Poulet hister Mort on/ umirs l/terf/c m oA/
YES g
Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
ft/or t/E///~/6~)
Is' installed system consistent with TS?
/t/07~
V E Et F/ E h Are there any problems with the TS (factual or X
editorial)?
APPEAR To Does proceduregarry out TS requirement?
'X _
Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should 4/07 ve"#ff/E b work as written?
Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
'K REMARKS: ON pas E 3/4 2 - 2..
THE f/JE~l._
A/Unt8 6;&
S/lodL._b
%C P $ $ I S O ~l l NOT
?$blOOQY.
THE j
A PPLic A UT J+A s pro u thch 3 mn PLH62 CURVCS PR i o R.
't-O A-MEhf.b IAIR
~7'H4' VSAR (J f4iC H IhEUTIFIE3 3 F0EL 7t??ES STATUS OF ITEM CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
_NRR In dst ~
co RR.Ec-T THE TYPO GR A-P W c A L E'R R A A/.h._
REyteu! THE /HMPL HG 2 cu/t t/ES.
'7~HC ucentsEE /ncts7~ AEQUEsT AN A-mtrilard r/T To ~rH E VSAR.
ALL. GF0KYS 'b dE ^P R i o (2. ~1 0 O L.
INSPECTOR (S): 34Lr 4
PowrAS FOLLGWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
I YES Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED RERARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ PS-35_ __
PAGE NO.:
i
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA:
3/4
- f. d PAGE NO.: 3/4 E-6 Tj,. y J/,7 E-7 TS REQUIREMENT:
Muwe%s
" Ecc c Shd=0e% "
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: __ M/A ISSUE DATE:
Al /A REV.:
n/A TITLE:
N/A YES NO uerAbf, w Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
V Is installed system consistent with TS?
V Are there any problems with the TS (factual or v'
editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
V Does the procedure walkoown indicate that it should V
work as written?
Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
V' REMARKS:
.) reu.s.J n..Lv.
t.<3.
t (,e e.~ /. 4.,rr 4cle. d cch kr,a M.
ema-Su a.'m n.c$-lc'e rh.b'< S,. A..w.
% ela re,
- 3. S.1..n.
- To.ea[.aE*m
- 2. s. 6. '... . s,u. r. a.
w v., L a n a s. a.- u. c. x _,s F.,L J L w,.o. h n.co..li d e e.a.r.n 4c
+. ' ',c. a._
n.ce s ea r,
openenarT N s'ah-c,J..dt.b i cE4,n 3.51 STATUS OF ITEM CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
l L L JL..,
n. E. s. t,
... J....
sL.11 Le 3 5 2. A- ( AW
'coet ut )
,l' INSPECTOR (S):
D.L. D2e e.s FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES g
i Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED l
REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ PS-35 PAGE NO.:
-M TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA:
3 N. 5.3 PAGE NO.: 3/4 5-8 Tiur.my N 3l't 5~~9 TS REQUIREMENT:
Ahwrews -
- L,,, gs,b jo. t
e f
LIC. PI:0CEDURE NO.:
Aj/A ISSUE DATE:
AJ/A REY.:
N/A TITLE:
M/A YES N0 por P.6.a.)
0 Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
t/
Is installed system consistent with TS?
V Are there any ;,roblems with the TS (factual or
/
editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
V Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should' v
work as written?
Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
V REMARKS:
- 8) reo..2.3 4(eeo.
.rc e f, w r b e ol d.cr 4,J r, M e,m eL4.rd. L4-
- 4. 5'.L 3
- s,,, :r c '
>>0t J..
2 ) vu,$.D +Lt
_r.d m AA 5" 2
.oo mer Y.
< J.d. Cv rehr,d m.ae,'//m
~
ra.a n l woe.csse, +s ena! DPEAA81Lt7y e! u r4 w
,d.:kAJ cm
<,<.4. d 2. s s STATUS OF ITEM (OPEN)
CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
% chse w
- 4. 5 3. 3..A-i t - m,rsola
& $/fs3c $
$ r. "
r eJ..A oC
- v..s 1. o.
INSPECTOR (S):
h. L. bu3o /r FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES 3
Were problems corrected?
l Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
i INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ F5 - 3 C PAGE NO.:
~, _ _ _ _ ___
~
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DAT/. SHEET TS PARA: M, / / /,S PAGE NO.: 3/l/
4-/
TS REQUIREMENT:
l&asu (enfahy,8~ kb/,dC, - C rd sud.&
Oexid21ho><-
U 0
(I LI
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: dod-o2o/ ISSUE DATE:
'/" M S' REY.:
O(
TITLE:
Mm Nu-d44#u b o //x;50-d d
YES
_NO Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
g Is installed system consistent with TS?
Ah9 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?
/)en/>b ass (Enk mr$ d[ M_yr7d/ &c) bnte igame REMARKS:
zh x -/
ts/L d wha. n.AiiA d "...
dc z% "
rwru m m & A f,s& ant & mse/cr dm w df..."
' rA n Am c G wAdu Gwe eL ud/n isfalla' esui4 mwo co>r[etmwebrtY U STATUSOkiTEM O
i.
CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
ll lmb u1/2Yb~a-O
[]
l INSPECTOR (S):
[~z2M FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
Yi i NO ji Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARTS:
l INSPECTOR (5):
i l
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
PAGE NO.:
f
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA:
f.l.F,/d PAGE NO.: 3[9 4-W TS REQUIREMENT:
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: coo-,an/ ISSUE DATE:
Bhv/By REY.:
6 TITLE:
Dai/u ens Loe, YES
- _N_0, 0
Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
Is installed system consistent with TS?
z/
Are there any problems with the TS (factual or t/
editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should work as written?
Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
REMARKS:
beviduo im.lLibed is.a 4 47sA? " -
rean b { fa & d w Av1 TMk < N&.
Il(b.fase _we Z5 nmwousy wb,,k
" ro
- 19. 2 (Asia ) D,<., 3h.9osid ad% wad L L n-a Q a t 3osid.'
i STATUS OF ITEM CLOSED l
FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
1% manten da d anak sma.. uu'ik 't9,2 aa osum6-,v.v sm wdi GMG'-
0 6
u l
INSPECTOR (S):
FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES NO l
Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED.
REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
i INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
PAGE N0.:
0 t
v.
~ -
~
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ "
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA:
4./, f,/ d PAGE NO.: 8
/T9 TS REQUIREMENT:
k om 4 m $m [t w A d - x d k/ d
[bsf'LR pMM M Skalhl 0 0
W LI
C. PROCEDURE
NO.:
M W/ ISSUE DATE:
E/24/#7 REY.:
O TITLE:
.Datlo om /oc,, _
0 l
YES NO Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
v Is installed system consistent with TS?
/
Are there any problems with the TS (factual or editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
/
l Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should work as written?
l Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
REMARKS:
SwllbArs nW) mm
&M o/o et sour /- h wr 2 4 sc-4 m
S. 2. 2, odb d -2 0 s-u STATUS OF ITEM h
CLOSED l
FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST D0 WHAT BY kHEN?
f.l u 'bi 7~_T m 4M ces> r4$ *
~'
11-g i
INSPECTOR (S):
F i
FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES' NO Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
~
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
l l
INSPECTOR (S):
i INSPECTI0tt REPORT 50-458/
PAGE NO.:
ii
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA:
M /, f. /,( /
2 PAGE NO.:
'/ dI-fd TS REQUIREMENT:
ST&lw (a1 Idalm 7'h k 6xmGd$
0 J
i G
C. PROCEDURE
NO.: M 7-odo?
ISSUE DATE:
//lo//T REY.:
df TITLE:
SC T_5 gauo6<3Z% Tiff YES
.N_0 0
Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
g Is installed system consistent with TS?
Are there any problems with the TS (factual or editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
Does the pro::edure walkdown indicate that it should work as written?
Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
REMARKS:
l'/oco edlha. lfirtts a Tld $ Ado 1. onmae 7e be s t-veuvu a cN'Ch S 2/2. o ad. & > 2 < W n a. 4.11 i,
,g STATUS OF ITEM CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
+
lltr/N &>vWc7ma.L d ?S~ Mud!$Cr=v-
~~
O O
f INSPECTOR (S):
MM FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTIONdEPORT50-458/
YES M
Were problems r.orrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
PAGE NO.:
f e--v+-**.
aw
-< -..,. m.2, W:
a v_...
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: 3A/ f. / /
PAGE NO.:
3/4 P-4 TS REQUIREMENT:
4/./. /./. 2. #
$w/ %.J LI
C. PROCEDURE
NO.:
s/4 ISSUE DATE:
REY.:
TITLE:
YES NO Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
y /,4 Is installed system consistent with TS?
g/4 Are there any problems with the TS (factual or i/
editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
ya Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should
_,A work as written?
Has. licensee completed procedure walkdown?
g/g REMARXS:
f, co4a c~
4 r-pehm w 4 df h M.f J
V V
/
umd, M m6%
/
6
& danse.
7~ I usda 2
,.,o-i k Ndo/ sf L~.vtu f
/2 m m t/vt
/
~
STATUS OF ITEM h
CLOSED FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
. A kC..
A terrgcY XS.
~'
INSPECTOR (S):
C..C.Marhuck FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES N_0 0
Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
i INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ 8 5 - 35 PAGE NO.:
,~
TfCHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET TS PARA: 3/V. P. /. /
PAGE NO.: 3/V #-7 TS REQUIREMENT:
Y.P././.a.-f. /3 B.,z y L s/m on aan & /e wJj McRaeLE ? M b u f n er
.,CP n E n es.
dwl. 4 Neuw b:
fw anactad. eau 'I M YeT - osoy ISSUE DATE:
C. PROCEDURE
NO.:
2-n-t r REY.:
o TITLE:
piv I Oa'uj G e dae Locke3 credf& Ted os of osv I R.,.e e
2-"-er YES N0 oso t> e v m 84-o 2-27-J r
-/
Is there any ifference between FSAR/SER and TS?
/
Is installed system consistent with TS7
/
Are there any problems with the TS (factual or
/
editorial)?
Does procedu ry ut TS requirement?
/
Does the procedure wt.lkdown indicate that it should N/A-work as written?
Has licensee completed procedure walkdown' REMARKS:
O For mal d oreesda
- b Mrd w e% AortooIS' t
In rs ven s aA vM B)
Pro co lw1Ar. do not Yoecar
+e d
M d -fb 'T'S.
Mv +N ular
\\ockD Ic msed ed r4(eN a+
Oc cit o.
vo ts d4 k
s4d fka
< 'uti.tA.
pree C i ke.$ % wed t skar:1 h'
CLOSED
( * * * '"
J)
STATUS OF ITEM l
FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
Oeu w
-d Jofrec.f _f rocc A h
~
~~
s,_; _..
_W Lran u nest.revke pros.eAM +o carro ovf-1T rerukh,r /
&cAc
.et v.tY Ch rWy T9 Yeno'riA en1 INSPECTOR (Sf:
C s C', [de 4 vc /c '
FOLLOUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES Were problems corrected?
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM OPEN CLOSED REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (S):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/ 75 -7S PAGE NO.:
l
_