IR 05000289/1973011
| ML19256D516 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1973 |
| From: | Brunner E, Rebelowski T, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D513 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-73-11, NUDOCS 7910180831 | |
| Download: ML19256D516 (14) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . \\
. . .
U. S. AT0!!IC ENEdGY C0!!!!ISSION . <
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS !O
REGION I
50-289 RO Inspection Report No.: 50-289/73-11 Docket No.: -' CPPR-40 Licensee: Metropolitan Edison Company License No.: __ . Three Mile Island - Unit 1 Priority: ! Category: B.1 ' f Location:, Middletown, Pennsylvania ~ B&W 871 MWe PWR Type of Licensee: , ' Routine, Announced - Type of Inspection: August 20-23, 1973 Dates of Inspection: . Dates of Previous Inspection: August 14-15, 1973 Reporting Inspector: .t w M, 9-//'7J DATE R.L.Spessa/d,ReactorInspector . .. . DATE
9-/ -7.5 Accompanying Inspectors: 'p u T. A. Rebelowsk', Reactor Inspector DATE . DATE - . None Other Accompanying Personnel: DATE , f[h-T /'/- ?J Reviewed By: _m E. 4. Brunner, Chief, Facility Test a'id Startup Branch 9A y y, . gC[[O f 806 3 I ' ' - . _ _ _ - _ _ _ $nro780{% _ ' '
. _- / . . - . s, , s . - ' . . d ! - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ( Enforcement Action None ,, - Licensee Action on Previous 1v Identified Enforcement Items None required relative to test and startup activities
Unusual Occurrences A.
Nuclear Service River Water Pump 1C Motor Failure During Testing (Paragraph 5) f B.
Core Flood Tank Stop Valves Malfunctions During Electrical Testing j (Paragraph 6) ' i C.
480 Volt Switchgear Malfunctions During Electrical Testing (Paragraph 7) Other Significant Findings - A.
Current 1.
Several preoperational test procedure deficiencies, which were ') identified during previous RO Inspections, have been resolved.
i (Paragraph 2.d) 2.
The core flood flow test was performed. This test was witnessed by RO:I.
(Paragraph 4) B.
Status of Previous 1v Reported Unresolved Items ' 1.
Scope of the core flood flow test (R0 Inspection Report No. 50-289/ 73-01) - Item is considered resolved based on revisions made to the test procedure.
(Paragraph 4) 2.
No change in other items.
Management Interview I An exit interview was conducted on August 22, 1973 at the conclusion of certain phases of the inspection.
Items discussed and personnel in attend-ance were as follows: Licensee Reoresentatives Mr. R. Heward, Project Manager, GPUSC Mr. J. Barton, Startup and Test Manager, GPUSC 1451 074 Mr. G. Miller, Test Superintendent, GPUSC ,Mr. J. Herbein, Assistant Superintendent, Met Ed ' . %_,. ... ...... -. - .... -.. _.. .- %.-._.
. - - -. = = - -
-- .. -- -. .. -. - . . . ! -2- ! (~) , . ' RO:I Representatives Mr. L. Spessard Mr. T. Rebelowski " .. A.
Inspection Scope and Findings The inspectors discussed the scope and findings of this inspection and the various commitments received from licensee representatives ' during the inspection.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the findings and the commitments.
(Paragraphs 2, 3, 5, and 6) B.
Barton D/P Cells (Models 368, 384, and 386) j A licensee representative stated, that in response to a question raised during a previous RO inspection *, a review of the design of Unit No. 2 (Docket No. 50-320) had been made, and none of the , subject D/P cells are utilized. The inspector stated that this matter was considered closed.
! l C.
Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 I i The applicability of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 to the Three Mile r~ Island Site was discussed, The inspector stated that the licensee \\ s} ~ must conform to all requirements of this appendix unless an exem-ption from specific requirements was granted by the Directorate of Licensing.
The inspector further stated that all AEC regulations, including appendices, are legally binding as of their effective i date.
! ! l Management Interview II i An exit interview was conducted on August 23, 1973 at the conclusion of the inspection. ' Items discussed and personnel in attendence were as follows: Licensee Representatives Mr. J. Barton, Startup and Test Manager, GPUSC Mr. G. Miller,. Test Supe:intendent, GPUSC RO:I Representative . Mr. L. Spessard
- R0 Inspection Report No. 50-289/73-01, Management Interview Item C.
' 1451 075 ,
_ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _.. __ . _.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_.
_.. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _..._ _ .. _ _ _. _ _..
. . ' ! 3- - . (), . A.
TP 201/5 Core Flood Flow Test . The inspector stated that no apparent deficiencies were identified with respect to the performance of t.*ais test.. The inspector stated, that since the procedure had been revised.to obEain additional data which could be evaluated to determine CF system coolant delivery capability, RO:I had no further questions on the scope of this test at this time and this matter was considered to be resolved.* (Paragraph 4)
4 l B.
480 Volt Switchgear Eilfunctions
The consequences of this event and the licensee's proposed actions were discussed.
The licensee representatives agreed to provide , additional information to the inspector, and this was done during a subsequent telephone conversion on August 24, 1973.
(Paragraph 7) l l ' . I l i . - i I . .
i i
- RO Inspection Report No. 50-289/73-01, Management Interview Item D.
i ' l
, 1451 076 . . w . . -we _. - --.,.%.-- --e
+e ,---- -.
' __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ . - . DETAILS , \\ (~, \\ 's' 1.
Persons Contacted Metropolitan Edison Company " J. Herbein, Assistant Superintendent J. Floyd, Supervisor of Operations M. Ross, Shift Supervisor B. Smith, Shift Foreman . L. Hydrick, Shift Foreman General Public Utilities Service Corporation J. Barton, Startup and Test Manager G. Miller, Test Superintendent , R. Toole, Assistant Test Superintendent ~i. Nelson, Technical Engineer . R. Brownewell, Cognizant Engineer ,
D. Gallagher, Lead Engineer S. Poje, Shift Test Engineer C. Gatto, Shift Test Engineer T. Sturgeon, QA Engineer ' G. Roshy, QA Engineer R. Heward, Project Manager (Management Interview Only) ! (~ . Babcock and Wilcox Company i ' J. Phinney, Site Operations Manager .i l - 2.
Preoperational Test Procedures Status of Test Procedure Preparation, Review, and Approval,* a.
Preoperational Test Procedures Approved for Performance-43% -12% Preoperational Test Procedures Awaiting Final Approval Preoperational Test Procedures Under Review by TWG & DOT - 7% Preoperational Test Procedures Written and Undergoing-13% In-house Review-25% Preoperational Test Procedures Not Started Based on 152 tests in preheatup and post heatup categories; status
reports contained in previous RO Inspection Reports were based on tests in the preheatup category only.
1451 077 ' . . - - - +. - _ _ _, - . - - - - - - ~. * =. -.. --..-~e-- --* - - - - - -w- -- - - -
~ ~_ _ ... _ _ _ _. _ .. _ __ - . . i l - -5-
- (~b r.)
b.
Status of Preoperational Testing * Preoperational Tests Completed and Accepted - 7% Preoperational Tests Completed and Under R view - 5% , Preoperational Tests in ProFress-10% { Preoperational Tests Not Started-78%
c.
RO:I Review of Preoperational Test Procedures ' The inspector conducted a review of the following preoperationa: test procedures: T.P. 160/2 Reactor Building Emergency Cooling Water System ' T.P. 203/7 Decay Hest Removal E.s. System Test T.P. 204/3 Reactor Building Spray System Functional Test T.P. 160/3 Reactor Building Purge System Functional Test (} T.P. 154/3 Penetration Pressurization Operational Test During this review, the inspector identified a number of apparent deficiencies which required resolution.
The deficiencies identified and the licensee representative!s and inspector's comments were l as follows: i l (1) T.P.160/2 Reactor Building Emergency Cooling Water System The inspector and licensee represeatative discussed and resolved questions on the method of conitoring pump and strainer performance and on typographical errors.
The inspector stated that further clarification is necessary in i following areas of this procedure: , (a) Deficiency - Following Step 9.10.4, pump RR-PlB is off and should be restarted prior to proceeding to Step 9.11.1.
Licensee Comment - Pump start will be added to Step 9.11.2.
- Based on 152 tests in preheatup and post heatup categories; status reports contained in previous RO Inspection Reports were based on tests in the preheatup category only.
< 1451 078 - - . -.m-.o.
--m-----e .we s-m+m--e.sw-_ e m, --m mm .~ e-. - --_.o me - ,-w . -
. . . . _ ______ ___ _ . . ____ _ ! l-6- ,- ' l (b) Deficiency - The procedure does not call for removal of the tygon tubing installed in Step 9.13.6.
, Licensee Comment - This item will be included in the restoration section or the precedufe (Step 9.13.11). i (c) Deficiency - The procedure does not demonstrate that the i R.B. Emergency Cooling Pumps start on initiation of a R.B. Isolation Signal.
Licensee Comment - This function will be demonstrated in
T.P. 310/3.
i l Prior to the completion of this RO Inspection, the inspector i observed that the Deficiencies described in (a) and (b) above ' had been corrected, as described by the appropriate licensee comment, by a written exception to the procti re in accordance
, with Test Instruction No. 18.
RO:I has no further comments ! on this proce' dure at this time.
T.P. 310/3 will be reviewed j during a subsequent RO Inspection.
} (2).T.P. 203/7 Decay Heat Removal E.S. Test ' i ,3 The inspector's review of this procedure disclosed no apparent \\ _' deficiencies. RO:I has no further comments on this procedure at this time.
(3) T.P. 204/3 Reactor Building Sprav System Functional Test i i The inspector and licensee representative discussed and resolved a question on providing space for sign-off and date for Step 4.5 of this proccdure. RO:I has no further comments on this procedure at this time.
(4) T.P.160/3 Reactor Building Purne System Functional Test The innpector and licensee representative discussed and resolved questions on exhaust fan flows, method of regulating capacity, individual damper control and verification of temperature switch set coint.
The inipector stated that further clarification is necessary in the fol1.owing area of this procedure: (a) Deficiency - The test prerequisites did not address initial systen cleanliness.
Since filter a P is of concern, the area of piping cleanliness should be addressed.
~1451 079 . _.
.
. . -. -. - - - -. - - , i i-7- , (- J r Licensee Comment - The cleanliness requirements for purge piping (supply and exhaust ducts) will be reviewed.
The subject of system cleanliness requirements will be reviewed during a subsequent RO' Inspection.
~ (5) T.P.154/3 Penetration Pressurization Operational Test The inspector and licensee representative discussed and resolved questions on individual damper control switches, acceptance criteria, tag out controls, and actuation signal valve openings.
' t The inspector stated that further clarification is necessary in the following areas of this procedure: ' (a) Deficiency - In several procedure steps single valve isolation of pressure reducers from the various gas sources is used, and , this could nullify test if the single valve did leak. A methor* of double isolation or hold time after bleed down was discussed.
Licensee Comment - Procedure to be revised to ensure that intersystem leakage does not occur.
I ~} (b) Deficiency - The acceptance criterin (11.6.3) for Step 9.6.3 ' ' should be given a definitive value in units of scfh for flow to the penetrations. The ability of the flow meters to measure the reduced flow requirement imposed by the - new maximum allowable leakage rate * was discussed.
The inspector stated that if flow readings obtained during electrical penetration testing are to be used as a value in the Type C testing required by Appendix J to 10 CFR 50, then the pressure must be held over a predetermined period after initial pressurization and periodic data points must be taken during this period.
Licensee Comment - Acceptance Criteria (11.6.3) will be expressed in units of scfh.
Flow meters will be inspected to ensure they will read in the ranges necessary.
A review of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 will be made to determine areas of possible impact . on testing.
R7 solution of Deficiencies (a) and (b) above, as indicated 5y thu appropriate licensee comment, will be verified during a subsequent RO Inspection.
FSAR Amendment No. 41, dated 7/16/73, reduced the DBA, leakage rate (La)
from 0.2 to C.1% by weight of contained atmosphere in 24 hours.
- - 1451 080 . .
. .
_: --- - .a n.. -.,.. - - -.- -.. . .- .- . i
. -8- ,, ,, d.
RO:I Review of Previously Identified Test Procedure Deficiencies The following is a report of the status or the resolution of previously identified deficiencies in. test frocedures as discussed , with the licensee's representatives.
(1) T.P.
305/lA Reactor Protection System Initial Power Aoplication The 3 Deficiencies, as identified in RO Inspection Report No. 50-289/73-06, Paragraph 5.c.(3), havr been resolved by inclusion of additional information in the procedure.RO:I has no further comments on this procedure at this time.
(2) T.P. 250/4 General Procedure for Cleaning and Flushing Systems and Components . The 3 Deficienciec, as identified in RO Inspection Reports No. 50-289/73-01, Paragraph 9 and No. 50-289/72-17, Para- ' graph 5, have been resolved by inclusion of additional infor-mation in the procedure. RO:I has no further comments on ' this procedure at this time.
, ~} (3) T.P. 401/1 Diesel Generator Startup Test The 3 Deficiencies requiring resolution, as identified in RO Inspection Report No. 50-289/73-04, Paragraph 9.c. (6), have been resolved by inclusion of additional information - in the procedure.
RO:I has no further comments on this procedure at this time.
(4) T.P. 256/3 Instrument and Control Air System Functional Test The 3 Deficiencies, as identified in R0 Inspection Reports No. 50-289/72-17, Paragraphs 4.b. (2) and (3) and No. 50-289/ 72-13, Paragraph 7.b. (2), have been resolved by inclusion of additional information in the procedure.
RO:I has no further comments on this procedure of this time.
(5) T.P. 273/3 Emer2ency Feed Water System Functional Test 2 of the 3 Deficiencies, as identified in RO Inspection Report No. 50-289/72-13, Paragraphs 7.c.(1), (2), and (3),have been resolved by inclusion of additional information in the procedure.
The remaining Deficiency which involves testing the performance . 1451 081 . .
. . wm _. _ . _. _ _ __ ___ ___ . _ _. _ . ' i-9- - , ('~) ~j of motor operated valves MSV-10A and 10B is not within the scope of this procedure; testing of these valves will be performed in T.P. 600/llA Emergency Feed System and OTSG Level Control Test. RO:I has to further comments on this procedure at this time.
T.P. 600/llA will be reviewed during a subsequent RO Inspection.
(6) T.P. 203/1 Decav Heat Removal System, BWST Functional Test 2 of the 3 Deficiencies requiring resolution, as identified in RO Inspection Report No. 50-289/73-01, Paragraph 7.c.(3), ' have been resolved by review of T.P. 203/7 and further review of the acceptance criteria for level and alarm indication systems. The remaining Deficiency which involves testing the heat tracing of the line from BWST to the auxiliary building is not within the scope of this procedure; i { 2 sting of the heat tracing will be performed in F 1104/46.
' RO:I has no further comments on this procedure at this time.
F 1104/46 will be reviewed during a subsequent R0 Inspection.
(7) T.P. 203/4 Decay Heat Removal System Functional Test 16 of 17 Deficiencies requiring resolution, as identified I~) in RO Inspection R'eports No. 50-289/73-04, Paragraph 9.c. (1) \\~ and No. 50-289/72-13, Paragraphs 7.a. (1)-(8) and (10), have ,been resolved by inclusion of additional information in the procedure and by testing performed in T.P. 251/1 T.P. 203/7, and T.P. 250/2. The remaining Deficiency which involves demonstration that the DHRS can lower the RC Temperature from 250 F to 140 F in 14 hours is not within the scope of
this procedure; this test will be performed in T.P. 600/24.
i RO:I has no further comments on this procedure et this time.
T.P. 600/24 will be reviewed during a subsequent RO Inspection.
3.
RO:I Review of Completed Preocerational Tests The inspector conducted a review of the following completed pre-operational test procedures which have been accepted by the licensee: , T.P. 172/2A Control Building Ven?illation Functional Test T.P. 256/3 Instrument and Control Air System Functional Test T.P. 268/3 Secondary Service River Water Functional Test F 1104/9 AMERTAP Functional Verification F 1104/12 Secondary Services Closed Cooling Water Systan Functional Test F 1104/22 Cycle Makeup Pretreatment Functional Verification 1451 082 . .
. .
_. _ __ _ . _ _ - _ ' . _lo_ . p ) F 1104/24B Screen House Ventillation Functional Verification F 1104/33 Screen House Equipment Functional Verification F 1104/36 River Water Chlorination Functional Verification F 1104/42 Station Air System Functional Verification i i j No apparent deficiencies were identified with respect to the requircments of the Test Manual, Test Instruction No. 9 and j Test Instruction No. 18.
Test results were satisfactory and all test requirements were satisfactorily performed.
.. < 4.
RO:I Review of the Performance of T.P. 201/5 Core Flood Flow Test . i During this R0 Inspection, T.P. 201/5 was performed.
The purpose l of this test is to demonstrate that the flow path from the Core j Flood Tanks to the Reactor Vessel is free from obstruction by
dischanging water from the Core Flood Tanks (pressurized to 100 psig) I into the empty Reactor Vessel, and to, verify cycle time of valves . I CF-VIA/B.
The tanks were discharged separately by opening its asso-ciated stop valve, allowing the level to decrease from 12' to 3', and closing the stop valve. During discharge, core flood tank level, pressure and stop valve position were recorded by brush recorder.
The acceptance criteria are a maximum of 20% discrepancy between times for tanks' level change and 10 + 1 seconds operating time for valves (]} CF-VIA/B.
- The inspector observed the water discharge to the empty Reactor { Vessel when tank CF-TIA was tested.
Additionally, the inspector
observed the operation of valve CF-VIA during the performance of
T.P. 250/4 Core Flooding System Cleaning and Flushing (Prerequisite Test for T.P. 201/5).
Regarding test performance, no apparent de-ficiencies were observed with respect to the requirements for Test l Instruction No. 9.
The inspector observed that engineers from the site QA organization audited the performance of this test.
'he inspector reviewed the raw test data for the flow test of tank CF-TI.i which indicated acceptable performance for operating time of valve CF-VIA and a time for tank level change of about 27 seconds.
The completed procedure, after being accepted by the licensee, will be reviewed during a subsequent R0 Inspection.
5.
Nuclear Service River Water Pump 1 C (NR-P-lC) Motor Failure Prior to this R0 Inspection, this occurrence was reported * by the licensee pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e). During this R0 Inspection, a licensee representative informed the inspecc c that the cause of the failure had not yet be n determined by the manufacturer.
He also
- Met Ed ltr dated August 20, 1973, to the Director, Directorate of Regulatory Operations
, i451 083 - . -. ~
- . ~ - - . . _ - - - -.. . _.. . . i . i _11 ig s stated that the other two Nuclear Service River Water Pumps were performing satisfactorily based on the testing results to date, but that the testing program for this system had not been completed.
With respect to retesting of NR-P-lC after its' motor failure has been satisfactorily resolved, the licensee representative stated the Bluebook Checks (T.P. 250/2) would be repeated.
> 6.
Core Flood Tank Stop Valves (CF-VIA/B) Malfunctions . The licensee notified the RO:I Office by telephone on August 20, 1973 of this event pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e). The inspector reviewed the licensee's draft Unusual Occurrence Report for this event which had been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Test Instruc- , tion No. 8 and discussed the details of this event with cognizant licensee representatives. The following information was obtained: . Following turnover of the electrical portion of the core flood ' system stop valves to the UE&C Startup Departmint during June 1973, an electrical engineer (UE&C Startup) found these valves (CF-VIA and CF-VIB) to be inoperable (would not move when manual operation was attempted) when he attempted to perform the initial setup of the limit switches on the motor operators. The apparent cg cause of this problem was, believed to be jamming in the mechanical N-end of the valve.
! I Following turnover of the mechanical portion of these valves to the UE&C Startup Department on July 31, 1973, an inspection was ~ made by UE&C and B&W representatives in early August 1973 which , revealed the stem to be elongated, thus restricting stem nut travel. The cause of the elongation was unknown, but could be due to improper operation of the valve in such a manner as to exceed the tensile strength of the 316 stainless steel stem.
These valves had not been operated at the TMI site; however, they were tested by the vendor prior to shipment.
Oconee 1, which utilizes valves of this type in its Core Flooding System, had experienced a similar problem during preoperational testing which led to the installation of new valve stems made of 17-4 PH. stainless steel. The vendor no longer uses 316 stainless steel stems in valves of this type, but uses stems made of 17-4 PH stainless steel. As a result of a field change request issued by B&W, stems made of 17-4 PH stainless steel were installed in valves CF-VIA/B.
Satisfactory operation of these valves following stem replacement was demonstrated during construction and preoperational testing of the Core Flooding System in mid-August, 1973.
1451 084 . .
. . . . ' . ' _. _ _.
- . . -12-B&W is reviewing the design of Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2 to determine the generic applicability to other safety related systems.
It has been determined that the Core Flooding System on Unit No. 2 is not similarly affectei.
Addit-ionally, B&W is to provide the licensee with information concerning the design review of this field change request which indicates material capability considerations were evaluated.
Specifics on the deficient valves ara as follows: Manufacturer - Walworth
Type - Model 5262-PS, 14 inch, Gate l Operator - Limitorque, Model SMB-4-200 7.
480, Volt Switchgear Malfunccions ' The inspector reviewed a UE&C Problem, Report (No. 124) dated ' July 9, 19i3 describing this event end discussed the details of this event with cognizent licencee representatives during this RO Inspection and during a subsequent telephone conversa- !
- ion on August 24, 1973. Th2 Jolloving information was obtained:
i During electrical testing of coil operated 480 volt circuit 'g(' -s breakers (Westinghouse Models DB-25 and D3-50), nuc-rous failures of the dicdes (Wescinghouse IN5404) across the close and trip coils have occurred.
Some cf the breakers involved relate to actuation of safeguards ccmponents.
The consequence of this failure is that i tlc breaker once closed will not rcelose on its hext required cycle, ' le, the close coil is shorted out during breaker closure. Additionally, this failure is not readily datectable, ie, by annunciator alarm or indicator light s.
This failure does not affect the ability of the breaker to trip.
These breakers are under the design cognizance of the AE (Cilbert As;ociates, Ir.c.) ard were supplied by Westinghouse with a diode acrosa tha trip coi.1, close coil, and antipump telay for spike suppression.
The voltage rating of this diode (400V), which was determined by Westinghouse during laboratory testing, is believed to be too low for actual servicc conditions.
The diodes in the subject breakers are being replaced with Thyrectors, Model 6R 20 AP1032 (sapp 1.ied by General Electric).
Licensee will submit a wr'tten report concerning this event pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e). Licensee will attempt to determine if the AE supplied or has requested this same design feature in ES switchgear on any other power reactors under the AE's design cognizance and if Westinghouse has supplied ES switchgear with this same design feature to any other power reactors. This information will be re-ported to RO:I.
t 14S1 085 . ,
. - , .. . , , - - . , - ~ , ' . , . I {~ s o . __ -- MEMO ROUTE SLIP Sa * * * **vt ta'*- Fa' coacu"*aca-Fa' acta-Form AEC-95 (Rev. May 14.1947) AEC.M 0240 Note and retura For tigmature.
( For inferraatloa.
i TO (Name and unit) IfslTIALS REMAAn$ R0 Chief, field METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ' Support & Enforcement Branch ( :Q) , RO:HQ (5) THREE MILE ISLAh'] UNIT I Central Mail & Files
' - Regulatory Standards (3) REPORT # 50-289/73-11 TO (Name and unit) MTIALS REM ^A KS The attached report is forwarded for vc.ur Regional Directors, information. As indicated in the report, the un (4) Core Flood Flow Test has been conducted at ' rut-1, a To,(N ;.. and uniu atiA's "^^^5 and sufficient data were obtained to evaluate cp sysen, an14vnt v r,n,h 41 1 t'r eheuld thic Directorate of becoEle a Regulatoky re'quirement.
On this basis, Licensing (13) oAn nnd in vinu n f ch a f,rt th't no Regulatory position on an acceptabic Core Flood Flow Test , raou m.m..nc un.o REMAAKS has bun developed, RO:1 has accepted this test i) - erbject t^ cur revicu cf the final syg evud _'E. J. Brunner test data.
RO:I ~ Distribution to PDR, Local PDR, NSIC, DTIE, and " " " ' " "*" State Representatives will be made after 264 9/14/73 oroprietary review is completed by the licensee.
USE OTHER $40E FOR ADCITICMAL REMAAKS CPO : 19110 - 445-44 9 . -. _. _ _. - ,. - - - ---~~~ ~
'
~ . 1451:,086 .
.~ . . $ w e b . a-- - r ' , . . ,9 , - . }}