ML20106C374: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML20106C374
| number = ML20106C374
| issue date = 02/07/1985
| issue date = 02/07/1985
| title = Advises That Draft Tech Specs Transmitted by 850130 Ltr Missing Pages 3/4 6-38 Through 3/4 7-20.Draft Should Be Revised to Comply W/Requirements of 10CFR50.62 & Applicant FSAR Commitments Re Standby Liquid Control Sys
| title = Advises That Draft Tech Specs Transmitted by Missing Pages 3/4 6-38 Through 3/4 7-20.Draft Should Be Revised to Comply W/Requirements of 10CFR50.62 & Applicant FSAR Commitments Re Standby Liquid Control Sys
| author name = Hiatt S
| author name = Hiatt S
| author affiliation = OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
| author affiliation = OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
Line 11: Line 11:
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = NUDOCS 8502120239
| document report number = NUDOCS 8502120239
| title reference date = 01-30-1985
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, PUBLIC ENTITY/CITIZEN/ORGANIZATION/MEDIA TO NRC
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, PUBLIC ENTITY/CITIZEN/ORGANIZATION/MEDIA TO NRC
| page count = 1
| page count = 1
Line 24: Line 25:
==Dear Mr. Storano:==
==Dear Mr. Storano:==


This is in regard to the drort Technical Specifications for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, os. distributed to the service list by letter dated January 30, 1985.        First, the copy I received is missing pages 3/4 6-38 through 3/4 7-20.
This is in regard to the drort Technical Specifications for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, os. distributed to the service list by {{letter dated|date=January 30, 1985|text=letter dated January 30, 1985}}.        First, the copy I received is missing pages 3/4 6-38 through 3/4 7-20.
Secondly, there oppears to o be o significant discreponey between Tech Spec assumptions and FSAR commitments (and the Commission's regulations) ror the standby liquid control system.
Secondly, there oppears to o be o significant discreponey between Tech Spec assumptions and FSAR commitments (and the Commission's regulations) ror the standby liquid control system.
Applicants have committed in their FSAR to parallet 2-pump operation or the SLcs, giving a riow rate or 86 9pm.            This was opproved by the Starr in Section 9.3.4 or SSER 3.            10 CFR 50.62 requires SLCS riow rote to be 86 spm, which is accomplished by simultaneous operation or both pumps.          However. Tech Spec 3.1.5 (p.:3/4 1-18) . treats the 2 subsystems os redundant, allowing a subsystem to remain inoperable for 7 days before shutting down the reactor, The bases section, 3/4.1.5.      p. B3/4 1-4, is again inconsistent with the design in that it refers to redundant pumps and o 41.2 gpm pumping. rote, chorocteristic or one pump.
Applicants have committed in their FSAR to parallet 2-pump operation or the SLcs, giving a riow rate or 86 9pm.            This was opproved by the Starr in Section 9.3.4 or SSER 3.            10 CFR 50.62 requires SLCS riow rote to be 86 spm, which is accomplished by simultaneous operation or both pumps.          However. Tech Spec 3.1.5 (p.:3/4 1-18) . treats the 2 subsystems os redundant, allowing a subsystem to remain inoperable for 7 days before shutting down the reactor, The bases section, 3/4.1.5.      p. B3/4 1-4, is again inconsistent with the design in that it refers to redundant pumps and o 41.2 gpm pumping. rote, chorocteristic or one pump.

Latest revision as of 19:29, 23 September 2022

Advises That Draft Tech Specs Transmitted by Missing Pages 3/4 6-38 Through 3/4 7-20.Draft Should Be Revised to Comply W/Requirements of 10CFR50.62 & Applicant FSAR Commitments Re Standby Liquid Control Sys
ML20106C374
Person / Time
Site: Perry  FirstEnergy icon.png
Issue date: 02/07/1985
From: Hiatt S
OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To: Stefano J
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8502120239
Download: ML20106C374 (1)


Text

-- -

So, Wo

53. W/

February 7, 1985 Mr. John Sterono, Project Monager

. Division or Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington,'Oc 20555

Dear Mr. Storano:

This is in regard to the drort Technical Specifications for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, os. distributed to the service list by letter dated January 30, 1985. First, the copy I received is missing pages 3/4 6-38 through 3/4 7-20.

Secondly, there oppears to o be o significant discreponey between Tech Spec assumptions and FSAR commitments (and the Commission's regulations) ror the standby liquid control system.

Applicants have committed in their FSAR to parallet 2-pump operation or the SLcs, giving a riow rate or 86 9pm. This was opproved by the Starr in Section 9.3.4 or SSER 3. 10 CFR 50.62 requires SLCS riow rote to be 86 spm, which is accomplished by simultaneous operation or both pumps. However. Tech Spec 3.1.5 (p.:3/4 1-18) . treats the 2 subsystems os redundant, allowing a subsystem to remain inoperable for 7 days before shutting down the reactor, The bases section, 3/4.1.5. p. B3/4 1-4, is again inconsistent with the design in that it refers to redundant pumps and o 41.2 gpm pumping. rote, chorocteristic or one pump.

It thus seams that the draft must be revised to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.62 and Applicants' FSAR commitments by.

requiring BOTH SLc subsystems to be operable at all times. TS 3.

'should be revised to

. Ir one (or both) subsystem is inoperable, both subsystems must be restored to OPERABLE status within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> or be in ot least HOT SHUTDOWN within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.

The bases section should be likewise revised to correspond to t..e parallel 2-pump,-86 gpm.PNPP design.

Sincerely, A A- -

Susan L. .Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd.

Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 L

DR hfo&Qn PDR v -